[ARTICLE] Immersion and Your Map

Shmitz

Old Hat
aa
Nov 12, 2007
1,128
746
Back to the point at hand, turbine is just simple underdetailed. Watchtower, while well detailed, still has the "watchtower that can't see anything" that makes a person go "huh, wait, what?" and breaks immersion.

This is not to say that JoshuaC is a bad mapper or anything, but I'm sure far more people will get the references being made to his map than if grazr had used, for example, my first TF2 map.
 

Tapp

L10: Glamorous Member
Jan 26, 2009
776
216
After reading your article I have decided to try an experiment. Using my basic knowledge of engineering, along with the CAD program I have access to, I will test which structures in both custom and stock maps hold up to physics. Just looking at the designs I can already see what the results will look like. Turbine, for example, has a ridiculously high roof made out of concrete with no supports whatsoever, which in hindsight should have been skybox. Of course, immersion is also broken by a giant empty room containing nothing, garages that go 2 feet in and store nothing more than a hose, air vents which lead onto a walkway (what?!) and shipping containers which serve no purpose other than, well, shipping containers. I shall return with my results if I finish this experiment.
 

Sel

Banned
Feb 18, 2009
1,239
2,570
I'd like to point out that while things do usually make realistic sense, there's also a motif of incompetence in the tf2 theme.

Top secret rooms, with giant windows that let you stare right in, important intelligence sitting on a desk, this job has worked 0 days, etc.

I'd argue that a watch tower sitting in a pit like that, and not being able to see anything works fine with tf2's theme, and doesn't really break immersion either.
 

Terr

Cranky Coder
aa
Jul 31, 2009
1,590
410
These kind of immersion issues (although perhaps more subtle than rooftop-barrels) was actually part of what I wanted to do when I did ctf_2fort_revamp. (boo, hiss)

Things that bugged me:
  • What purpose does the sewer serve for each base? Why do they need to let water in?
  • The high-water mark in the central pool and first leg of the sewers was clearly higher than the sewer-room floor. So why is there a door and electrical equipment below the waterline?
  • That's an awful parched-looking river. And it's not just seasonal, looking at the junk.
  • Is there a reason RED and BLU both built a command center at this location beyond pure coincidence? Is there a shared need besides rural isolation?

I tried to solve these with:
  • Two "pressure door" props and a static prop valve for controlling them, showing that the sewer-room could be sealed against dangerous water levels.
  • A few places you can see into the spytech venting: It's obviously carrying hot air, which relates to...
  • A "cooling tower" which explains why both bases use the water: It's to cool hot air either from the generators (added as inaccessible underground detail) or some other nefarious project.
(Note to self: Investigate Granary boiler/distillery props.)

Thus we explain the existence of the sewer system, the location of the bases near water, and the high-water-line mystery, all as part of adding some new routes into the already-cramped layout.
 
Last edited:

lana

Currently On: ?????
aa
Sep 28, 2009
3,075
2,778
That is part of the basal required suspension of disbelief of the game.

See also "Why did RED build a train track directly into something they're trying to protect?", "Why don't RED and BLU just attack the other team's headquarters in Hydro?", and "Why is there no rocket thruster on the payload?"
 

grazr

Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle
aa
Mar 4, 2008
5,441
3,814
...Top secret rooms, with giant windows that let you stare right in, important intelligence sitting on a desk, this job has worked 0 days, etc...


See also "Why did RED build a train track directly into something they're trying to protect?", "Why don't RED and BLU just attack the other team's headquarters in Hydro?", and "Why is there no rocket thruster on the payload?"

These are gameplay related features. The same reason why we don't question animated 3D Control Point holograms in 1969, that hover over ominous giant metal plates, or huge giant arrow signs pointing us in the direction of the enemy base, which happens to be completely symmetrical in design. Or the fact that the soldier uses an RPG to jump to excessively high heights without exploding into hundreds of gibs.

Because these are gameplay related, we accept these oddities for the sake of gameplay mechanics.

I've seen the fact that RED and BLU have bases directly opposite each other in 2fort used to justify all sorts of crazy concepts for custom maps, but that isn't the point. Besides, following the recently updated narrative from Halloween we see that all the land was owned by one individual who split up the lands equally for his 2 sons, redmanne and blumanne. Allowing for the building of two huge bases opposite each other in competition for control of the area.

But as i mentioned in the first paragraph. Such things relating to gameplay allow for further abstraction than otherwise acceptable in the TF2 narrative. Otherwise we could ask ourselves why BLU and RED bother to wait patiently to fight at the same time, from behind locked gates; wouldn't they just attack each other consistantly in an mmorpg fashion? Or at least wait until the defenders gaurd is down to outnumber and slaughter their enemy with ease.

If the payload had a rocket booster, we wouldn't have a viable gameplay mechanic. There would be no reason for BLU to attack RED with men, and no need for TF2 to exist as a game to entertain the masses.
 
Last edited:
Jan 20, 2010
1,317
902
I would also mention doors that open as you walk closer to them. Unless they have some pressure sensitive plate, I do not believe this is possible in the late 60s. :p
 

lana

Currently On: ?????
aa
Sep 28, 2009
3,075
2,778
It's obvious that everyone's memory was wiped in 1984 and we were brainwashed with fake history.

I would also mention doors that open as you walk closer to them. Unless they have some pressure sensitive plate, I do not believe this is possible in the late 60s. :p

Totally possible.
 

Trotim

aa
Jul 14, 2009
1,195
1,045
Besides, following the recently updated narrative from Halloween we see that all the land was owned by one individual who split up the lands equally for his 2 sons, redmanne and blumanne.
Redmond and Blutarch
 

Acumen

Annoyer
aa
Jun 11, 2009
704
630
while i'm general a huuuuuuge fan and supporter of the immersion factor in games and always find it interesting to stumble over such topics and tutorials, you guys are taking it a bit too far, imo - as quite often in the past weeks, i have to say :D
some of you totally tend to overtheorize the topic.

i think we all understood the article and now discussing the "issues" you discuss is kinda pointless. stop the philosophy and bring the immersion in your maps --> GO BACK TO MAPPING NOW :D
get the fun back in this tf2 editing thing :)
 

Sel

Banned
Feb 18, 2009
1,239
2,570
Because these are gameplay related, we accept these oddities for the sake of gameplay mechanics.

First off, none of what I mentioned, except the intel sitting out in the open, are even related to gameplay.

Second, by that reasoning, the cliffs in watchtower prevent you from getting out, so they're also gameplay related, and we accept those oddities for the sake of gameplay mechanics.


Obviously that reasoning is wrong though, just because something is gameplay related, does not mean it's acceptable in the art style, and I don't see why you used that to respond to my post, when it's hardly even related.
 

lana

Currently On: ?????
aa
Sep 28, 2009
3,075
2,778
Second, by that reasoning, the cliffs in watchtower prevent you from getting out, so they're also gameplay related, and we accept those oddities for the sake of gameplay mechanics.

Some fences and proper playerclipping could accomplish the same goal.
 

grazr

Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle
aa
Mar 4, 2008
5,441
3,814
First off, none of what I mentioned, except the intel sitting out in the open, are even related to gameplay.

Second, by that reasoning, the cliffs in watchtower prevent you from getting out, so they're also gameplay related, and we accept those oddities for the sake of gameplay mechanics.


Obviously that reasoning is wrong though, just because something is gameplay related, does not mean it's acceptable in the art style, and I don't see why you used that to respond to my post, when it's hardly even related.


1) The inclusion of cliffs is one method used to keep players in a map, this is obviously seen in maps like dustbowl. However, Dustbowl's objective/theme does not dictate a stricter attention to the environment regarding things like cliff height. If the cliffs were huge, and we were to reason whether this is consistant to the rest of the environment, we see that it is. Because the tall cliffs do not conflict with the narrative of the map, particularly the objective. Tall cliffs do not conflict with the rocket launch pad's operation.

Watchtower's theme requires the same consideration, but we have a different result. Tall cliffs clearly conflict with the operation of a watchtower. Having a watchtower completely surrounded by cliffs makes such a structure redundant, so we would not expect to see it exist in reality, and thus not in a TF2 map. The resource themes still abide by rules related to reality. They are important places that are the focus of mercenary battles, such facilities are designed to look like they 'work', so that we are able to immerse ourselves in these environments and justify our presence here. Because watchtower does not 'work', because its presence is not realisticly justified, we are unable to justify our own presence at this location. We question our presence and our immersion is broken.

Goldrush, Stage 1, CP 1. Cliffs? No. 4ft fence with detail area? Yes.

The cliffs do not specifically serve to keep players in the map, this is not the role of a cliff face in TF2, there are plenty of alternative methods for cordoning the play area; which also happen to compliment the maps theme. Given the maps theme the use of cliffs surrounding the objective is completely inappropriate. Cliffs are not a gameplay function, things like arrow signs are, so we can better stretch our acceptance of what we are presented with for the sakes of allowing us to experience the world with better flow. Cliffs do not not serve the same sort of function.

2) Spytech is part of our suspended disbelief in relation to the narrative that we are being presented with. The same concept that keeps the Star Trek narrative consistant applies here. Just because we have faster than light travel, something that clearly goes against well established laws of theoritical physics, does not give the writers the artistic lisence to have disc turtles floating through space. Then justify it by saying because we are already breaking the fundemental law's of physics, we can pretty much do what ever we want.

Since spytech did not exist in our reality, and is a function of the narrative, it is therefor open to further art abstraction than other areas of TF2. In the same way warp travel is open to other theoretical concepts (co-axial warp, trans-warp, etc). Anything else tends to abide with our understanding of reality. The use of cliffs as a gameplay function, when they conflict with our understanding of how watchtowers operate, does not conform with this rule. Oddities in the presentation of "spytech" are not an excuse to do what ever scenarios you feel like, and expect to have them widely accepted. That's just a lack of comprehension regarding what spytech is to the narrative.

Abstract design concepts of a fictional form are not motif's of incompetence, nor are they excuses to be blazay about your maps theme and its level of dissonance.
 
Last edited:

Kinky

L1: Registered
Feb 19, 2009
28
40
Interesting stuff. I did my 3rd year dissertation on the subject (but for TF2 in general, not just mapping). Was actually quite interesting considering how lame a dissertation could be.
 

Shmitz

Old Hat
aa
Nov 12, 2007
1,128
746
I'd like to point out that while things do usually make realistic sense, there's also a motif of incompetence in the tf2 theme.

Top secret rooms, with giant windows that let you stare right in, important intelligence sitting on a desk, this job has worked 0 days, etc.

Things like this are not a motif of incompetence, but rather they are methods of lampshading, which is one way of taking something that could create dissonance, drawing brief attention to it, and then moving on. Instead of wondering why there are a bunch of people with guns running around a grain shipping facility, we see a sign that draws the quirk into the narrative, laugh at the joke, and keep playing.

Let's continue our look at watchtower as an example. Instead of opening up the surrounding walls, one could add a pair of binoculars and some kind of chart that says "Eastern rocks clear", "Western rocks clear", etc. If obvious enough to anyone in the watchtower, this could lampshade the issue and avoid breaking immersion almost as effectively.
 

Terr

Cranky Coder
aa
Jul 31, 2009
1,590
410
That is part of the basal required suspension of disbelief of the game.

Perhaps my phrasing wasn't clear.

I don't mean "Why did they build a base next to each other." The fact that they do isn't something that gets questioned.

It's "Why did either of them choose to build a base in this kind of environment." Why are the 2fort bases across a small river in a rural area, as opposed to across an obvious resource/infrastructure like ctf_well's trainyard or ctf_doublecross' track system.
 
Last edited:

Mexican Apple Thief

L3: Junior Member<br>LEAD FARMER
Aug 23, 2008
345
60
[*]That's an awful parched-looking river. And it's not just seasonal, looking at the junk.

Prolly 'cause it's not a river but a creek. And the reason they're there isn't to control the creek, the creek is just there. They aren't there for any resource aside from having a base in that area.