I was wondering if you guys think that working on the editor for some years could help you get a job in video game programing if you work at any company or if you work for blizzard, I am just asking to see if the editor will at least help me a little in life or if people just don't care.
I think not everyone, but some employers may consider as a positive factor if you mention that you have completed a complex game on sc2 editor kind of platform. Because it proves that you organized enough to complete a project, have not so low intellectual level to learn the editor, probably have some programming skills, and some game design experience. It's if you only care about the impression you make as a position candidate.
But, for sure, using editor gives you some skills that should actually help you in any gamedev related job.
I don't have any person experience in this, but I know that guy who made the mod for Skyrim got a job at Bethesda. I think he actually wound up working somewhere else, I don't remember.
But as far as I can tell, it would be just like any other portfolio. It shows what you can do. So yes, I would say it would definitely be beneficial, but how beneficial would be definitely up to the company and the quality of the map. I would think that they would also want original code examples in the portfolio as well and a decent degree, but again, just speculation.
Look at it this way: 99% of 'getting into' anything is pure luck.
If you're trying to get into something, then it's likely that your interests and possibly education are already aimed in that specific direction and really, that's all you can do - at this point it's up to the thing you're trying to get into and whether they accept you or not. The things you cannot possibly get into will also be the things you do not want to get into: if you study social sciences you're never gonna be hired as a biological researcher, but you'll likely never apply for such a position anyway.
That said, any experience you gather can only ever help you. Nobody's going to not hire you because you've got experience doing 'X'. You're not gonna land a lead designer job at Blizzard or Electronic Arts because you did some mapping, but you'll still have more of a chance than someone who has never touched a PC in his life. If you keep this in your mind, literally ANYTHING you do helps you in some way. You could literally perform the most stupid job in the world for 10 years and it would still show you've got dedication, if nothing else. Plus, if you really like something, you'll generally find ways to learn form it: I learned game designing partly from all the mapping I did and have now actually landed a job as a designer. I should also add that it is possible to learn valuable life skills from literally anything you do, be it learning a class in World of WarCraft or watching TV series.
In the end, I'll point back to what I started this point with: 99% of getting into anything is pure luck, or being in the right place at the right time. My mapping experience contributed exactly 0 to landing the designer job I got, though it is definitely helping me in the activities now required of me.
Well, yes, but that should be rather obvious - I'm playing with words (numbers) to make a point. Neither of us can actually in any way prove any of our numbers are spot on.
I'll note your argument for networking, and it may be important to keep in mind, but I still think in the long run it's not as much about that either - you can network all you want, but if a company doesn't need you you're still not going to get a job there. You need to know people, but you also need to know them and be in contact with them at exactly the right time (i.e. when said company is doing well and is expanding).
Everything you do or not do contributes to your future.
The question is if working in the editor is important and brings happiness to you. The video games industry is full of people who entered it by contributing to mods and/or being passionate and interested about mods and the process of making a game in particular. So chances are if you put time and passion into it you will make contacts sooner or later (probably later) and/or might meet someone who already works in the industry who is genuinely interested about your SC2 editor work. Of course that is beneficial to getting a job.
And a lot of video game developers are also actively searching for people all the time and having made a finished mod project for a game could easily be the tipping point that gives you a job interview for an application over someone who has no such qualification, even over people with degrees in some cases. But many other roads have a good chance of leading to your destination as well, it's not like there is this one secret knowledge or trick to get what you want, life doesn't work that way. Be passionate about what you do and put energy into it and by time you will get what you ask for. Even if you don't always like the answer.
Also, "working for a couple of years" could mean anything, all that counts in the end is what you created and of what quality that content is. You might "work" for multiple years in the editor but never put real energy and work into it and only create sub-par stuff, or you could create the most amazing mods in one year. The time period in which a creative product was created doesn't say much about what it is worth.
I personaly think that for good programmers working in editor can be a pure waste of time.. This editor is pretty difficult and can take almost as much time as needed for learning your 2nd programming language. Also it's very thankless job, cuz the only guy who takes any profit from your work is blizzard. As you can see they advertising how cool the arcade is, creating arcade highlights with emphasize that you should "jump into arcade right now and try out this map", it's just pure marketing for increasing sc2 online and popularity in general, marketing that has almost 0 cost cuz fans making maps for free (not even for food :> ). The cynicism of blizzard in relation to mapmakers is pretty descend, concerning the amount of official tutorials, editor issues feedback on battle net forums and the tricky editor design in general, where even duplication doesn't work clear enought. So there are few advantages however that you personally can take from mapping:
Understanding how games work from inside (assets, animations, gameplay), if you planing to go into game development.
Learning basics of game design and balancing.
Very basics of programming
Create some game that you've being dream off but couldn't create without editor cuz no you have no millions for high quality assets and no uber skills in cpp/DirectX coding and enjoying the creation process (my case)
But if your question was about job and money then definitely you can just learn Java / OpenGL and create cool 3d live wallpapers for android and taking thousands of dollars from it. I don't rly see any other scenarios in which you may profit from your sc2editor skills except the direct blizzard vacancy, which is probably possible but very unlikely.
I think not everyone, but some employers may consider as a positive factor if you mention that you have completed a complex game on sc2 editor kind of platform. Because it proves that you organized enough to complete a project, have not so low intellectual level to learn the editor, probably have some programming skills, and some game design experience. It's if you only care about the impression you make as a position candidate.
I have created several campaigns for WC3 and they helped me get a job as a level designer. Looking back I should have probably stopped after one campaign and then focused more on programming/coding, level art and 3D editors like UnrealEd. Designing levels needs the least amount of skill in the games industry (testing aside), so it's good to have wide variety of knowledge about game design in general. Not many level designers are wanted, especially not RTS-level designer in this day and age. But you can use SC2 to show that you can design and finish a project. I stopped working as a LD 13 months after I got the job because I wanted to build other qualifications (almost all the LDs got laid off anyway after the game was finished), but I have recently updated my portfolio website: http://outsiderxe.campaigncreations.org/
While you're here, I feel I can ask you a question to which the answer might be interesting for the others in this thread.
I recently found your campaigns and went back into WarCraft 3 to play them through. I got as far as the last level of Lord of the Clans and halfway through Day of the Dragon. Without meaning any offense, I have to say I find it curious to hear you landed a job as a level designer specifically: I found the design and terrain of your levels in both those campaigns to be the very weakest aspect of them. The lore was good, the cinematics and effects were done nicely and the flow was alright, but the lay-out and gameplay decisions seemed... not much more than average up to where I played. I've been meaning to try your SC2 campaign to see if things have changed there (since I do enjoy playing your material) and I've never liked Settlers 7 much (aside from the level design, I think 6 was a better game).
How do you feel your level designing skills have changed over the years? Would you say that you honestly got better? Can I expect better design if I try out Shadows of the Xel'Naga compared to Lord of the Clans?
I think it certainly helps you, in a way. You gain more knowledge on how games work/are developed (using/making assets, designing gameplay, balancing, basic programming [to some extent], and so on). It definitely would be a plus if you have finished your project and polished it, especially if it's a large one, would show that you're dedicated and passionate enough to accomplish such a feat. However, while it could play a factor (especially today, when a lot of devs usually look at modders when hiring new staff), I wouldn't depend on it solely for securing a job in the future.
(When I write level design I mean gameplay. (Level) art is terraining/texturing).
LotC was my first project and it was mainly built out of the desire to make something playable out of a book I read. It lacked direction. Not only the maps were made up as I went but even smaller objectives were made up on the spot as I was working in the editor. DotD had the same design "philosophy", only on a much bigger scale and with more experience with the editor. TLG was a bit different because of the focus on puzzles, so it was more about trying to explore the possibility of a different genre in an RTS game. On the one hand it helped that half of TLG was finished while working on Settlers 7, on the other hand it was quite stressful to work on two pojects at the same time.
I think if you look closely at the campaigns you will notice that the terraining has gotten better from campaign to campaign (TLG again, is a bit of a different kind because it relies so much on imports).
I actually agree with the average quality of LotC and DotD from a smaller point of view. But if you put all the aspects together: the amount of maps, the objectives, the triggers, the time spent. That is what they want to see. If I recall correctly half of the dudes workign at Blizzard as level designers were WC3 mappers, and they only made a few Tower Defense maps or maybe a campaign (something I read a while back).
In the job interview (fyi: TLG wasn't finished at that point, but I submitted the 3 maps anyway) we never went into the details of any map. they asked me to tell them something about my projects and I told them about my love for WC lore and how I wanted to create something playable out of the books. I told them I am not a good storyteller so I chose an existing source. I told them about the difficulty of trying to create varied gameplay when you mostly control only a single hero. They generally seemed more impressed with my enthusiasm for mapmaking and my will to actually complete large scale projects. (I had to hold myself back not to talk too much although I am a very introvert person.) Later I found out they had only played about 1,5 maps of LotC and didn't like the stealth/fight pace of Map 2 that much. Sometimes it's not so much about quality, but the ability to finish something. Many people get frustrated when their hobby turns into a job and all of a sudden they have to do something daily, without the creative freedom they were used to.
I also believe each level designed is should focus on different strengths from genre to genre. If you have a portfolio consisting of screenshots of 3D maps (UnrealEd etc.) of course the screenshots you present should be as good-looking as possible (your best work only). They should show that you understand texturing, lightning, meshes, object placement etc. I don't think it's that important with 2D games (yes, WC3/SC2 are 2D games from a gameplay perspective). Here it more important that your screenshots convey your gameplay ideas.
As the months went by while working on Settlers 7 my responsibilites shifted more and more from level art to level design. I spent more coming up with gameplay ideas for maps than just building the terrain (which is considered an upgrade. Anyone can make levels look nice with enough time and experience, because it is more craft than art).
This way I learned how important it was to plan ahead, make design documents and paint map layouts. I still suck at map layouting but my terraining has improved a lot. You can see the difference when you look at a Starcraft 2 map (http://outsiderxe.campaigncreations.org/sotx.php). I also understand that I should no longer make up ideas for a map while working on it. A map should consist of one clear idea and it should be followed (or changed if it doesn't work). My first SC2 map (SotX1; you can't download it yet) still suffers from that because it has too many elements (driving vehicles, hunting bosses, etc.). The map spends too much time trying to teach the player how it works. Later maps follow a clear genre (SotX2: Puzzles, SotX3: DotA, SotX4: Tower Defense...). I also learned that it is very important to separate gameplay and art. I commit 100%ly to gameplay and work only with very basic blocking elements until I am finished with the gameplay and all triggers work as intended. Only then I start working on the terrain.
Despite all that I still learn a lot about designing with each map I create. I often look back and tell myself I wish I could have done this or that differently. I could certainly overhaul all the old maps, but I prefer to use my experience on completely new things. The only thing I allow myself to do now is bugfixing. And back in 2002-2005 there were not many good maps anyway, especially not campaigns.
To answer your question if you should expect better design in SotX then in LotC: Terrain art (and possibly cinematics) will certainly be better. The gameplay (fun) is a more complicated matter which I would like to discuss. I already said that I like to try out new things. SotX is going to be a co-op campaign with each level featuring a different gameplay idea. I have no experience in making co-op maps. I already have to change so many details about the story that I am not sure if it is that good of an idea anymore. The campaign will not feature anymore cinematic-only maps to keep the pace. One player shouldn't wait for another. Co-op gets more complicated because each map is vastly different from one another. I explore a lot of new genres and each time I have to teach the player(s) the gameplay mechanics. In my opinion all of my other campaigns had clear high points in terms of map making, which were usually around the middle of a campaign. The first few maps are more like test-maps, where I try out new mechanics. And the final maps usually show symptoms of being burned out. Often they are overloaded with stuff and not enough time was taken to test if it's actually fun. In SotX each map is like a test-map. I spent a lot more time on each map, often throwing out ideas that don't feel right. Once I have finished the last map I will go back to each of the old ones and apply what I have learned during the time. I don't plan on releasing any maps until I am satisfied. But again, that is no guarantee that you will like it more, it just means games/mods nowadays have become much more complicated to make, and the demand for a polished experience is a lot higher.
I've always been a story-driven mapmaker, so my maps will never be as flashy or feature-loaded as StarCraft Universe, Night of the Living Dead or Hive Keeper. In this day and age story-driven custom maps seem very rare. Most people focus on a single multiplayer map and add as many features as possible. People want to create the next DotA, the next TD, a map that will get them a #1 spot on the Arcade. Maybe it will make them famous, work for Gabe Newell, or they'll become immortal... I see so many threads here where the first question people ask is "Do you you think people will play it?", and quit if they don't get the desired attention. I'm thankful that I never had to (and never will) ask that question, because I already know the answer.
TLDR:
I agree that my WC3 campaigns are average., but when you look for a job long-term commitment and passion are more important.
My level design and level art skills have improved a lot over the years, especially during my time with Settlers 7.
The improved skills are no guarantee for a better campaign in SotX because I try out things I have no experience in.
I aim for Blizzard-style story maps, not for feature-loaded multiplayer maps.
Wow,thats a lot of text but its super interesting.
I have never played your maps but I will try, they look fun and if you can write this much for a small thread then I can take some time and play starcraft, I was going to anyways.
That was a really interesting and awesome reply. I kinda feel like everyone(Mapster Community) should read that who has the slightest inkling in doing something with gaming or programming.
Pokenoufl,
I believe the editor is in C plus plus, which should be you 1st language if you are interested in going into game design/development. I'm not sure what other languages you need to know, but it seems like browser gaming is getting a lot more popular these days. Ruby?
I think the Editor can provide some useful experience for the job world. It is incredibly complicated and from my understanding does not cross over to other gaming platforms, but the product can be quite beautiful and something to show off in a portfolio. Echoing Outsider, a prospective employer would also be stoked on you doing collaborative work on a project as well as working through a critique process.
LotC was my first project and it was mainly built out of the desire to make something playable out of a book I read. It lacked direction. Not only the maps were made up as I went but even smaller objectives were made up on the spot as I was working in the editor. DotD had the same design "philosophy", only on a much bigger scale and with more experience with the editor. TLG was a bit different because of the focus on puzzles, so it was more about trying to explore the possibility of a different genre in an RTS game. On the one hand it helped that half of TLG was finished while working on Settlers 7, on the other hand it was quite stressful to work on two pojects at the same time.
I think if you look closely at the campaigns you will notice that the terraining has gotten better from campaign to campaign (TLG again, is a bit of a different kind because it relies so much on imports).
I actually agree with the average quality of LotC and DotD from a smaller point of view. But if you put all the aspects together: the amount of maps, the objectives, the triggers, the time spent. That is what they want to see. If I recall correctly half of the dudes workign at Blizzard as level designers were WC3 mappers, and they only made a few Tower Defense maps or maybe a campaign (something I read a while back).
The reason I find all of this so interesting is because you're one of the very few people in the industry that have left behind such an obvious and similar portfolio of their work. You're kind of the perfect subject to 'analyze' when it comes to 'learning design' over the years precisely because you've consistantly made the same stuff (campaigns and story-based level design) while adjusting as time went along.
Your last paragraph up there actually does make a lot of sense; while your WC3 maps are only of average quality when compared to the Blizzard campaigns or some of the better custom campaigns, one should keep in mind that you made everything yourself: you did the terraining, triggering, lay-out, design, story, cinematics and unit/data editing. That in itself is a pretty mindblowing feat that's easy to forget when checking out your maps. I have mostly worked in teams, though I've got one map that I made solely by myself (The Turning - it's in my profile, though it may be grossly outdated these days as it was made a couple of months after the release of WoL) and I know the hassle of having to do it all yourself. Props for that.
Edit: I just went back and gave The Turning another try myself. Looks like everything is in order and it still plays the way I intended it when I first made it. Coming back to it after such a long time though, I've noted one or two small design mistakes that I could probably have improved upon.
As the months went by while working on Settlers 7 my responsibilites shifted more and more from level art to level design. I spent more coming up with gameplay ideas for maps than just building the terrain (which is considered an upgrade. Anyone can make levels look nice with enough time and experience, because it is more craft than art).
That last bit is something I found myself somewhat disagreeing with. I wouldn't say terrain art is much of a craft at all. I've seen very few people who were legitimately bad at terraining and actually got legitimately good. The eye for terrain seems to be something someone either has or not. I've seen bad terrainers try to imitate the tricks of better ones, but their terrains never resonate with me and don't quite feel right. At the same time I've seen some goddamn brilliance come out of the blue (Foxtail comes to mind, as well as virtually everyone in here). I'll agree that it's not hard to make a level look nice, or 'alright' (artistically, in SC2), but to getting beyond that point is definitely something I'd call an 'art'.
Despite all that I still learn a lot about designing with each map I create. I often look back and tell myself I wish I could have done this or that differently. I could certainly overhaul all the old maps, but I prefer to use my experience on completely new things. The only thing I allow myself to do now is bugfixing. And back in 2002-2005 there were not many good maps anyway, especially not campaigns.
If I can give you just one piece of constructive criticism, I would say that even in SotX (from what I can see from your videos and screenshots) you still have this 'quirk' where your maps are over-the-top linear. I also felt that way in LotC and DotD - in a lot of maps you seem to struggle with how to lead the player in a certain direction and end up making a terrain that is quite literally linear; it's easy to see how your starting point was to paint the entire map with unwalkable area and then simply draw a meandering path from the starting location to the goal. Having your level design linear doesn't hurt, but having your art that linear instantly makes the entire map feel so much worse. Take a look at SotX3 (yes, I know it is a MOBA set-up) and then compare it to the HotS campaign level "With Friends Like These" and note how similar they look. The reason the HotS level gets away with this is because the entire thing is in space and guiding units with terrain in a feasible way there is extremely hard. Your map however, I reckon, could do a lot more to look like the WoL mission "Whispers of Doom", which gameplay-wise is just as linear and meandering as your map, but art-wise looks and FEELS like an actual cave, or otherwise something that's actually part of a larger scene rather than a 'path painted in unwalkable area'.
In my opinion all of my other campaigns had clear high points in terms of map making, which were usually around the middle of a campaign. The first few maps are more like test-maps, where I try out new mechanics. And the final maps usually show symptoms of being burned out. Often they are overloaded with stuff and not enough time was taken to test if it's actually fun.
You're right here, this is definitely something I noticed too. In general I've enjoyed the middle parts of your campaigns the most, so far.
I've always been a story-driven mapmaker, so my maps will never be as flashy or feature-loaded as StarCraft Universe, Night of the Living Dead or Hive Keeper. In this day and age story-driven custom maps seem very rare. Most people focus on a single multiplayer map and add as many features as possible. People want to create the next DotA, the next TD, a map that will get them a #1 spot on the Arcade. Maybe it will make them famous, work for Gabe Newell, or they'll become immortal... I see so many threads here where the first question people ask is "Do you you think people will play it?", and quit if they don't get the desired attention. I'm thankful that I never had to (and never will) ask that question, because I already know the answer.
Story-driven maps aren't as rare as they seem, they're just incredibly hard to find due to their very (single-player) nature: Blizzard never provided us with a proper way to put up custom campaigns and as a result players need to find these maps themselves, download them and then use some kind of 'switch map' to properly play one campaign level after the other. This is a good place to start.
TLDR: I agree that my WC3 campaigns are average., but when you look for a job long-term commitment and passion are more important. My level design and level art skills have improved a lot over the years, especially during my time with Settlers 7. The improved skills are no guarantee for a better campaign in SotX because I try out things I have no experience in. I aim for Blizzard-style story maps, not for feature-loaded multiplayer maps.
That's good to hear. I love a good story with nice gameplay just like the other man and I'd love to check out your campaigns; especially since co-op is a lot of fun.
Thanks again for responding, I hope our thoughts help the people in this thread.
Very interesting and informative post there, Outsider! (Quite motivational too.) Like Hockleberry said, I feel that anyone who wants to take on game development or programming as a job should give it a read.
Everything except story and custom imports. Just wanted to clarify that.
Quote:
I wouldn't say terrain art is much of a craft at all. I've seen very few people who were legitimately bad at terraining and actually got legitimately good. The eye for terrain seems to be something someone either has or not. I've seen bad terrainers try to imitate the tricks of better ones, but their terrains never resonate with me and don't quite feel right. At the same time I've seen some goddamn brilliance come out of the blue (Foxtail comes to mind, as well as virtually everyone in here). I'll agree that it's not hard to make a level look nice, or 'alright' (artistically, in SC2), but to getting beyond that point is definitely something I'd call an 'art'.
I thought about that today and you are right. At Settlers 7 we had some art specialists who came into production later than me. Not only did they surpass my level art in terms of quality (not just because I moved to design), but they also managed to produced level art that was literally art. The Settlers 7 editor was like the sc2 terrain editor, only you had much more control over textures, modelling of terrain heights (no dedicated cliff heights) and how everything blended into one another.
Quote:
...your maps are over-the-top linear. I also felt that way in LotC and DotD - in a lot of maps you seem to struggle with how to lead the player in a certain direction and end up making a terrain that is quite literally linear; it's easy to see how your starting point was to paint the entire map with unwalkable area and then simply draw a meandering path from the starting location to the goal.
A lot of this linearity exists because books are a linear medium. I want to cover as many things that happen in the book as possible and I don't feel I can do that if I just let the player decide what he wants to do. (Also there is rarely any base-building in the books.) My biggest influence in that regard is probably other video games. Since Red Alert 2 my favourite levels have always been those (indoor) missions where you controlled only a few heroes you had to take care of and move from A to B. I also love games like Max Payne where the cinematic experience is very important and the levels don't offer much space. I have realized that I have gotten into a comfort zone of linear levels and I find it hard to make it different. This was a big problem at Settlers 7, which is a very open game. It starts the map and just throws you in there and lets you decide if you want to play defense or offense. You can win either way (You gain victory points for having the largest city, most used supply and so on. No need to attack). I want to add here that it is generally a lot harder to make maps for a game that doesn't exist. In SC2 we all knew what was possible when we played the campaign. We understood the game design of SC2, we knew the rules and could break them when we wanted to. I also tried to apply my rule-breaking method on Settlers 7, until I realized I should support them, and help build a game that players can understand, and then let the players break (or rather bend) the rules however they wanted to.
Quote:
Having your level design linear doesn't hurt, but having your art that linear instantly makes the entire map feel so much worse. Take a look at SotX3 (yes, I know it is a MOBA set-up) and then compare it to the HotS campaign level "With Friends Like These" and note how similar they look. The reason the HotS level gets away with this is because the entire thing is in space and guiding units with terrain in a feasible way there is extremely hard. Your map however, I reckon, could do a lot more to look like the WoL mission "Whispers of Doom", which gameplay-wise is just as linear and meandering as your map, but art-wise looks and FEELS like an actual cave, or otherwise something that's actually part of a larger scene rather than a 'path painted in unwalkable area'.
At first SotX3 was supposed to be like the Viking minigame but my skills with the data editor were too limited and I didn't know how to make it stand out. Afterwards I came up with the idea of a DotA in space, much like "With Friends Like These", but making the campaign for co-op forced me to have at least two playable units. One is Xerana, a Dark Templar, and the other one is her vessel. The story is that she appears at the scene when Protoss, Terran and Zerg are entangled in space battle. Now how could I have made the map be in space if Xerana is supposed to be a seperate unit? Quick answer: I couldn't. So I came up with the idea of map playing on an asteroid. I could have ignored Xerana at that point of the story and simply made it playable from one of the races perspective, but introducing Xerana too late in the campaign would have made it really awkward. This is an example of dillemas I am faced with when writing the script. I can change anything I want, but will I do justice to the events of the book? Experience has shown that I can do whatever I feel like adds to the gameplay. Let the book be a book and create the best possible gameplay experience, I say. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by linear art but to my understanding the art takes after the gameplay. I can't create space where it shouldn't be. I have to make the art work around the gameplay. What I could do is think more about how a place would look in reality. Then make it, go back to the level design, build it around the changes in the art, then back to art. A constant back and forth until I am satisfied.
Turning SotX3 into a cave map is impossible btw. The story just happens in space at that time. Chapter 6 will be a cave map. Unfortunately I don't have SC2 installed at this time. I would love to have closer looks at the maps you mentioned and provide you with some more screenshots of SotX. But maybe you can send me some screens of bad examples of my campaigns and maybe some screens of how similar problems were solved by Blizzard.
Quote:
Thanks again for responding, I hope our thoughts help the people in this thread.
I must thank you. I've missed having an outside opinion about my views on level design. I think linear level design can be great but I should definitely look out for more ways to think out of this box. But I don't think you will see it with SotX. Too many things were planned a long time ago.
I was wondering if you guys think that working on the editor for some years could help you get a job in video game programing if you work at any company or if you work for blizzard, I am just asking to see if the editor will at least help me a little in life or if people just don't care.
thanks for answering :)
I got into programming back in WC3 by using the map editor, and now im almost done with my bachelor in CS. :)
So yes, it can definatly help you getting into the business.
I think not everyone, but some employers may consider as a positive factor if you mention that you have completed a complex game on sc2 editor kind of platform. Because it proves that you organized enough to complete a project, have not so low intellectual level to learn the editor, probably have some programming skills, and some game design experience. It's if you only care about the impression you make as a position candidate.
But, for sure, using editor gives you some skills that should actually help you in any gamedev related job.
I don't have any person experience in this, but I know that guy who made the mod for Skyrim got a job at Bethesda. I think he actually wound up working somewhere else, I don't remember.
But as far as I can tell, it would be just like any other portfolio. It shows what you can do. So yes, I would say it would definitely be beneficial, but how beneficial would be definitely up to the company and the quality of the map. I would think that they would also want original code examples in the portfolio as well and a decent degree, but again, just speculation.
Great to be back and part of the community again!
Look at it this way: 99% of 'getting into' anything is pure luck.
If you're trying to get into something, then it's likely that your interests and possibly education are already aimed in that specific direction and really, that's all you can do - at this point it's up to the thing you're trying to get into and whether they accept you or not. The things you cannot possibly get into will also be the things you do not want to get into: if you study social sciences you're never gonna be hired as a biological researcher, but you'll likely never apply for such a position anyway.
That said, any experience you gather can only ever help you. Nobody's going to not hire you because you've got experience doing 'X'. You're not gonna land a lead designer job at Blizzard or Electronic Arts because you did some mapping, but you'll still have more of a chance than someone who has never touched a PC in his life. If you keep this in your mind, literally ANYTHING you do helps you in some way. You could literally perform the most stupid job in the world for 10 years and it would still show you've got dedication, if nothing else. Plus, if you really like something, you'll generally find ways to learn form it: I learned game designing partly from all the mapping I did and have now actually landed a job as a designer. I should also add that it is possible to learn valuable life skills from literally anything you do, be it learning a class in World of WarCraft or watching TV series.
In the end, I'll point back to what I started this point with: 99% of getting into anything is pure luck, or being in the right place at the right time. My mapping experience contributed exactly 0 to landing the designer job I got, though it is definitely helping me in the activities now required of me.
@Mozared: Go
80% is networking... That adds up to more than 100%... one of us may be making up our statistics, apparently 95% of people do that.
@MaskedImposter: Go
Well, yes, but that should be rather obvious - I'm playing with words (numbers) to make a point. Neither of us can actually in any way prove any of our numbers are spot on.
I'll note your argument for networking, and it may be important to keep in mind, but I still think in the long run it's not as much about that either - you can network all you want, but if a company doesn't need you you're still not going to get a job there. You need to know people, but you also need to know them and be in contact with them at exactly the right time (i.e. when said company is doing well and is expanding).
Everything you do or not do contributes to your future.
The question is if working in the editor is important and brings happiness to you. The video games industry is full of people who entered it by contributing to mods and/or being passionate and interested about mods and the process of making a game in particular. So chances are if you put time and passion into it you will make contacts sooner or later (probably later) and/or might meet someone who already works in the industry who is genuinely interested about your SC2 editor work. Of course that is beneficial to getting a job.
And a lot of video game developers are also actively searching for people all the time and having made a finished mod project for a game could easily be the tipping point that gives you a job interview for an application over someone who has no such qualification, even over people with degrees in some cases. But many other roads have a good chance of leading to your destination as well, it's not like there is this one secret knowledge or trick to get what you want, life doesn't work that way. Be passionate about what you do and put energy into it and by time you will get what you ask for. Even if you don't always like the answer.
Also, "working for a couple of years" could mean anything, all that counts in the end is what you created and of what quality that content is. You might "work" for multiple years in the editor but never put real energy and work into it and only create sub-par stuff, or you could create the most amazing mods in one year. The time period in which a creative product was created doesn't say much about what it is worth.
I personaly think that for good programmers working in editor can be a pure waste of time.. This editor is pretty difficult and can take almost as much time as needed for learning your 2nd programming language. Also it's very thankless job, cuz the only guy who takes any profit from your work is blizzard. As you can see they advertising how cool the arcade is, creating arcade highlights with emphasize that you should "jump into arcade right now and try out this map", it's just pure marketing for increasing sc2 online and popularity in general, marketing that has almost 0 cost cuz fans making maps for free (not even for food :> ). The cynicism of blizzard in relation to mapmakers is pretty descend, concerning the amount of official tutorials, editor issues feedback on battle net forums and the tricky editor design in general, where even duplication doesn't work clear enought. So there are few advantages however that you personally can take from mapping:
Understanding how games work from inside (assets, animations, gameplay), if you planing to go into game development.
Learning basics of game design and balancing.
Very basics of programming
Create some game that you've being dream off but couldn't create without editor cuz no you have no millions for high quality assets and no uber skills in cpp/DirectX coding and enjoying the creation process (my case)
But if your question was about job and money then definitely you can just learn Java / OpenGL and create cool 3d live wallpapers for android and taking thousands of dollars from it. I don't rly see any other scenarios in which you may profit from your sc2editor skills except the direct blizzard vacancy, which is probably possible but very unlikely.
Exactly. I put Mass Recall on my résumé and interviewers usually ask a quick question about it. I'm an engineer, though I don't program.
I have created several campaigns for WC3 and they helped me get a job as a level designer. Looking back I should have probably stopped after one campaign and then focused more on programming/coding, level art and 3D editors like UnrealEd. Designing levels needs the least amount of skill in the games industry (testing aside), so it's good to have wide variety of knowledge about game design in general. Not many level designers are wanted, especially not RTS-level designer in this day and age. But you can use SC2 to show that you can design and finish a project. I stopped working as a LD 13 months after I got the job because I wanted to build other qualifications (almost all the LDs got laid off anyway after the game was finished), but I have recently updated my portfolio website: http://outsiderxe.campaigncreations.org/
@OutsiderXE: Go
While you're here, I feel I can ask you a question to which the answer might be interesting for the others in this thread.
I recently found your campaigns and went back into WarCraft 3 to play them through. I got as far as the last level of Lord of the Clans and halfway through Day of the Dragon. Without meaning any offense, I have to say I find it curious to hear you landed a job as a level designer specifically: I found the design and terrain of your levels in both those campaigns to be the very weakest aspect of them. The lore was good, the cinematics and effects were done nicely and the flow was alright, but the lay-out and gameplay decisions seemed... not much more than average up to where I played. I've been meaning to try your SC2 campaign to see if things have changed there (since I do enjoy playing your material) and I've never liked Settlers 7 much (aside from the level design, I think 6 was a better game).
How do you feel your level designing skills have changed over the years? Would you say that you honestly got better? Can I expect better design if I try out Shadows of the Xel'Naga compared to Lord of the Clans?
Well this thread is going well, thanks for answering.
@Mozared: Go
Nice question, this should be interesting.
I think it certainly helps you, in a way. You gain more knowledge on how games work/are developed (using/making assets, designing gameplay, balancing, basic programming [to some extent], and so on). It definitely would be a plus if you have finished your project and polished it, especially if it's a large one, would show that you're dedicated and passionate enough to accomplish such a feat. However, while it could play a factor (especially today, when a lot of devs usually look at modders when hiring new staff), I wouldn't depend on it solely for securing a job in the future.
(When I write level design I mean gameplay. (Level) art is terraining/texturing).
LotC was my first project and it was mainly built out of the desire to make something playable out of a book I read. It lacked direction. Not only the maps were made up as I went but even smaller objectives were made up on the spot as I was working in the editor. DotD had the same design "philosophy", only on a much bigger scale and with more experience with the editor. TLG was a bit different because of the focus on puzzles, so it was more about trying to explore the possibility of a different genre in an RTS game. On the one hand it helped that half of TLG was finished while working on Settlers 7, on the other hand it was quite stressful to work on two pojects at the same time.
I think if you look closely at the campaigns you will notice that the terraining has gotten better from campaign to campaign (TLG again, is a bit of a different kind because it relies so much on imports).
I actually agree with the average quality of LotC and DotD from a smaller point of view. But if you put all the aspects together: the amount of maps, the objectives, the triggers, the time spent. That is what they want to see. If I recall correctly half of the dudes workign at Blizzard as level designers were WC3 mappers, and they only made a few Tower Defense maps or maybe a campaign (something I read a while back).
In the job interview (fyi: TLG wasn't finished at that point, but I submitted the 3 maps anyway) we never went into the details of any map. they asked me to tell them something about my projects and I told them about my love for WC lore and how I wanted to create something playable out of the books. I told them I am not a good storyteller so I chose an existing source. I told them about the difficulty of trying to create varied gameplay when you mostly control only a single hero. They generally seemed more impressed with my enthusiasm for mapmaking and my will to actually complete large scale projects. (I had to hold myself back not to talk too much although I am a very introvert person.) Later I found out they had only played about 1,5 maps of LotC and didn't like the stealth/fight pace of Map 2 that much. Sometimes it's not so much about quality, but the ability to finish something. Many people get frustrated when their hobby turns into a job and all of a sudden they have to do something daily, without the creative freedom they were used to.
I also believe each level designed is should focus on different strengths from genre to genre. If you have a portfolio consisting of screenshots of 3D maps (UnrealEd etc.) of course the screenshots you present should be as good-looking as possible (your best work only). They should show that you understand texturing, lightning, meshes, object placement etc. I don't think it's that important with 2D games (yes, WC3/SC2 are 2D games from a gameplay perspective). Here it more important that your screenshots convey your gameplay ideas.
As the months went by while working on Settlers 7 my responsibilites shifted more and more from level art to level design. I spent more coming up with gameplay ideas for maps than just building the terrain (which is considered an upgrade. Anyone can make levels look nice with enough time and experience, because it is more craft than art).
This way I learned how important it was to plan ahead, make design documents and paint map layouts. I still suck at map layouting but my terraining has improved a lot. You can see the difference when you look at a Starcraft 2 map (http://outsiderxe.campaigncreations.org/sotx.php). I also understand that I should no longer make up ideas for a map while working on it. A map should consist of one clear idea and it should be followed (or changed if it doesn't work). My first SC2 map (SotX1; you can't download it yet) still suffers from that because it has too many elements (driving vehicles, hunting bosses, etc.). The map spends too much time trying to teach the player how it works. Later maps follow a clear genre (SotX2: Puzzles, SotX3: DotA, SotX4: Tower Defense...). I also learned that it is very important to separate gameplay and art. I commit 100%ly to gameplay and work only with very basic blocking elements until I am finished with the gameplay and all triggers work as intended. Only then I start working on the terrain.
Despite all that I still learn a lot about designing with each map I create. I often look back and tell myself I wish I could have done this or that differently. I could certainly overhaul all the old maps, but I prefer to use my experience on completely new things. The only thing I allow myself to do now is bugfixing. And back in 2002-2005 there were not many good maps anyway, especially not campaigns.
To answer your question if you should expect better design in SotX then in LotC: Terrain art (and possibly cinematics) will certainly be better. The gameplay (fun) is a more complicated matter which I would like to discuss. I already said that I like to try out new things. SotX is going to be a co-op campaign with each level featuring a different gameplay idea. I have no experience in making co-op maps. I already have to change so many details about the story that I am not sure if it is that good of an idea anymore. The campaign will not feature anymore cinematic-only maps to keep the pace. One player shouldn't wait for another. Co-op gets more complicated because each map is vastly different from one another. I explore a lot of new genres and each time I have to teach the player(s) the gameplay mechanics. In my opinion all of my other campaigns had clear high points in terms of map making, which were usually around the middle of a campaign. The first few maps are more like test-maps, where I try out new mechanics. And the final maps usually show symptoms of being burned out. Often they are overloaded with stuff and not enough time was taken to test if it's actually fun. In SotX each map is like a test-map. I spent a lot more time on each map, often throwing out ideas that don't feel right. Once I have finished the last map I will go back to each of the old ones and apply what I have learned during the time. I don't plan on releasing any maps until I am satisfied. But again, that is no guarantee that you will like it more, it just means games/mods nowadays have become much more complicated to make, and the demand for a polished experience is a lot higher.
I've always been a story-driven mapmaker, so my maps will never be as flashy or feature-loaded as StarCraft Universe, Night of the Living Dead or Hive Keeper. In this day and age story-driven custom maps seem very rare. Most people focus on a single multiplayer map and add as many features as possible. People want to create the next DotA, the next TD, a map that will get them a #1 spot on the Arcade. Maybe it will make them famous, work for Gabe Newell, or they'll become immortal... I see so many threads here where the first question people ask is "Do you you think people will play it?", and quit if they don't get the desired attention. I'm thankful that I never had to (and never will) ask that question, because I already know the answer.
TLDR: I agree that my WC3 campaigns are average., but when you look for a job long-term commitment and passion are more important. My level design and level art skills have improved a lot over the years, especially during my time with Settlers 7. The improved skills are no guarantee for a better campaign in SotX because I try out things I have no experience in. I aim for Blizzard-style story maps, not for feature-loaded multiplayer maps.
@OutsiderXE: Go
Wow,thats a lot of text but its super interesting.
I have never played your maps but I will try, they look fun and if you can write this much for a small thread then I can take some time and play starcraft, I was going to anyways.
Outsider,
That was a really interesting and awesome reply. I kinda feel like everyone(Mapster Community) should read that who has the slightest inkling in doing something with gaming or programming.
Pokenoufl,
I believe the editor is in C plus plus, which should be you 1st language if you are interested in going into game design/development. I'm not sure what other languages you need to know, but it seems like browser gaming is getting a lot more popular these days. Ruby?
I think the Editor can provide some useful experience for the job world. It is incredibly complicated and from my understanding does not cross over to other gaming platforms, but the product can be quite beautiful and something to show off in a portfolio. Echoing Outsider, a prospective employer would also be stoked on you doing collaborative work on a project as well as working through a critique process.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, there was a lot of interesting stuff in your post. Let me pick out the bits I can say something about.
The reason I find all of this so interesting is because you're one of the very few people in the industry that have left behind such an obvious and similar portfolio of their work. You're kind of the perfect subject to 'analyze' when it comes to 'learning design' over the years precisely because you've consistantly made the same stuff (campaigns and story-based level design) while adjusting as time went along.
Your last paragraph up there actually does make a lot of sense; while your WC3 maps are only of average quality when compared to the Blizzard campaigns or some of the better custom campaigns, one should keep in mind that you made everything yourself: you did the terraining, triggering, lay-out, design, story, cinematics and unit/data editing. That in itself is a pretty mindblowing feat that's easy to forget when checking out your maps. I have mostly worked in teams, though I've got one map that I made solely by myself (The Turning - it's in my profile, though it may be grossly outdated these days as it was made a couple of months after the release of WoL) and I know the hassle of having to do it all yourself. Props for that.
Edit: I just went back and gave The Turning another try myself. Looks like everything is in order and it still plays the way I intended it when I first made it. Coming back to it after such a long time though, I've noted one or two small design mistakes that I could probably have improved upon.
That last bit is something I found myself somewhat disagreeing with. I wouldn't say terrain art is much of a craft at all. I've seen very few people who were legitimately bad at terraining and actually got legitimately good. The eye for terrain seems to be something someone either has or not. I've seen bad terrainers try to imitate the tricks of better ones, but their terrains never resonate with me and don't quite feel right. At the same time I've seen some goddamn brilliance come out of the blue (Foxtail comes to mind, as well as virtually everyone in here). I'll agree that it's not hard to make a level look nice, or 'alright' (artistically, in SC2), but to getting beyond that point is definitely something I'd call an 'art'.
If I can give you just one piece of constructive criticism, I would say that even in SotX (from what I can see from your videos and screenshots) you still have this 'quirk' where your maps are over-the-top linear. I also felt that way in LotC and DotD - in a lot of maps you seem to struggle with how to lead the player in a certain direction and end up making a terrain that is quite literally linear; it's easy to see how your starting point was to paint the entire map with unwalkable area and then simply draw a meandering path from the starting location to the goal. Having your level design linear doesn't hurt, but having your art that linear instantly makes the entire map feel so much worse. Take a look at SotX3 (yes, I know it is a MOBA set-up) and then compare it to the HotS campaign level "With Friends Like These" and note how similar they look. The reason the HotS level gets away with this is because the entire thing is in space and guiding units with terrain in a feasible way there is extremely hard. Your map however, I reckon, could do a lot more to look like the WoL mission "Whispers of Doom", which gameplay-wise is just as linear and meandering as your map, but art-wise looks and FEELS like an actual cave, or otherwise something that's actually part of a larger scene rather than a 'path painted in unwalkable area'.
You're right here, this is definitely something I noticed too. In general I've enjoyed the middle parts of your campaigns the most, so far.
Story-driven maps aren't as rare as they seem, they're just incredibly hard to find due to their very (single-player) nature: Blizzard never provided us with a proper way to put up custom campaigns and as a result players need to find these maps themselves, download them and then use some kind of 'switch map' to properly play one campaign level after the other. This is a good place to start.
That's good to hear. I love a good story with nice gameplay just like the other man and I'd love to check out your campaigns; especially since co-op is a lot of fun.
Thanks again for responding, I hope our thoughts help the people in this thread.
Very interesting and informative post there, Outsider! (Quite motivational too.) Like Hockleberry said, I feel that anyone who wants to take on game development or programming as a job should give it a read.
Everything except story and custom imports. Just wanted to clarify that.
I thought about that today and you are right. At Settlers 7 we had some art specialists who came into production later than me. Not only did they surpass my level art in terms of quality (not just because I moved to design), but they also managed to produced level art that was literally art. The Settlers 7 editor was like the sc2 terrain editor, only you had much more control over textures, modelling of terrain heights (no dedicated cliff heights) and how everything blended into one another.
A lot of this linearity exists because books are a linear medium. I want to cover as many things that happen in the book as possible and I don't feel I can do that if I just let the player decide what he wants to do. (Also there is rarely any base-building in the books.) My biggest influence in that regard is probably other video games. Since Red Alert 2 my favourite levels have always been those (indoor) missions where you controlled only a few heroes you had to take care of and move from A to B. I also love games like Max Payne where the cinematic experience is very important and the levels don't offer much space. I have realized that I have gotten into a comfort zone of linear levels and I find it hard to make it different. This was a big problem at Settlers 7, which is a very open game. It starts the map and just throws you in there and lets you decide if you want to play defense or offense. You can win either way (You gain victory points for having the largest city, most used supply and so on. No need to attack). I want to add here that it is generally a lot harder to make maps for a game that doesn't exist. In SC2 we all knew what was possible when we played the campaign. We understood the game design of SC2, we knew the rules and could break them when we wanted to. I also tried to apply my rule-breaking method on Settlers 7, until I realized I should support them, and help build a game that players can understand, and then let the players break (or rather bend) the rules however they wanted to.
At first SotX3 was supposed to be like the Viking minigame but my skills with the data editor were too limited and I didn't know how to make it stand out. Afterwards I came up with the idea of a DotA in space, much like "With Friends Like These", but making the campaign for co-op forced me to have at least two playable units. One is Xerana, a Dark Templar, and the other one is her vessel. The story is that she appears at the scene when Protoss, Terran and Zerg are entangled in space battle. Now how could I have made the map be in space if Xerana is supposed to be a seperate unit? Quick answer: I couldn't. So I came up with the idea of map playing on an asteroid. I could have ignored Xerana at that point of the story and simply made it playable from one of the races perspective, but introducing Xerana too late in the campaign would have made it really awkward. This is an example of dillemas I am faced with when writing the script. I can change anything I want, but will I do justice to the events of the book? Experience has shown that I can do whatever I feel like adds to the gameplay. Let the book be a book and create the best possible gameplay experience, I say. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by linear art but to my understanding the art takes after the gameplay. I can't create space where it shouldn't be. I have to make the art work around the gameplay. What I could do is think more about how a place would look in reality. Then make it, go back to the level design, build it around the changes in the art, then back to art. A constant back and forth until I am satisfied. Turning SotX3 into a cave map is impossible btw. The story just happens in space at that time. Chapter 6 will be a cave map. Unfortunately I don't have SC2 installed at this time. I would love to have closer looks at the maps you mentioned and provide you with some more screenshots of SotX. But maybe you can send me some screens of bad examples of my campaigns and maybe some screens of how similar problems were solved by Blizzard.
I must thank you. I've missed having an outside opinion about my views on level design. I think linear level design can be great but I should definitely look out for more ways to think out of this box. But I don't think you will see it with SotX. Too many things were planned a long time ago.