This is something I've wondered for a while. Whenever I make a map, I find it really hard to go from a "top-down" approach where you know the overall positions and sizes of everything in advance, and proceed to "fill in" the details. I work much better from a "bottom-up" perspective, where I begin with some point of reference (usually mid, and if a control point is involved then all the better) and progressively add things on to grow the space in an organic kind of way (which I call "fill out"). I do this on a map level, but also on smaller levels too - if I'm making a room, I never block out the dimensions beforehand unless the space is already defined by existing geometry in the map. The room then only becomes as big as it needs to be.
I'd be interested to know which methods people tend to use and why. I can see there being pros and cons to both methods.
Fill Out
+ Don't need to know dimensions beforehand.
+ Not limited by dimensions you've decided on if you get them wrong. Can change things as you go on.
+ Can create spaces that feel more organic, rather than meticulously planned.
+ Spaces can be build alongside the context of what already exists so far - adaptive.
- Lack of forward planning means unseen problems can crop up, eg. too much/not enough space.
- Lack of design direction - you know what you want to make, but not yet how it fits together.
Fill In
+ Begin from a layout that caters for everything (objectives, spawns, etc.) - just need to connect them.
+ Forces forethought, so potential layout issues show up early and can be fixed.
+ Prioritises overall targets (eg. desired style of gameplay) by designing them in, rather than hoping they emerge from the end result.
- Geometry is less driven by its local surroundings, which can result in less natural-looking environments.
- If initial decisions were inaccurate, changing things can easily end up affecting layouts of surrounding areas.
My guess is that people who like focusing on one thing at a time (me), and have more trouble grasping the overall picture (very me) will prefer Fill Out, while people who like to have everything very clear on a macro level to make sure all the design aspects integrate together will prefer Fill In.
I'd be interested to know which methods people tend to use and why. I can see there being pros and cons to both methods.
Fill Out
+ Don't need to know dimensions beforehand.
+ Not limited by dimensions you've decided on if you get them wrong. Can change things as you go on.
+ Can create spaces that feel more organic, rather than meticulously planned.
+ Spaces can be build alongside the context of what already exists so far - adaptive.
- Lack of forward planning means unseen problems can crop up, eg. too much/not enough space.
- Lack of design direction - you know what you want to make, but not yet how it fits together.
Fill In
+ Begin from a layout that caters for everything (objectives, spawns, etc.) - just need to connect them.
+ Forces forethought, so potential layout issues show up early and can be fixed.
+ Prioritises overall targets (eg. desired style of gameplay) by designing them in, rather than hoping they emerge from the end result.
- Geometry is less driven by its local surroundings, which can result in less natural-looking environments.
- If initial decisions were inaccurate, changing things can easily end up affecting layouts of surrounding areas.
My guess is that people who like focusing on one thing at a time (me), and have more trouble grasping the overall picture (very me) will prefer Fill Out, while people who like to have everything very clear on a macro level to make sure all the design aspects integrate together will prefer Fill In.
