Dev textures and why you should NOT use them.

[Seba]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psy

I would have never finished a map.

Fix'd.

My opinion on dev textures is, well...they're dev textures. If nothing's wrong with the layout, I start texturing and detailing and try to release a beta asap.

[StoneFrog]

Political:

I have mapped for the Goldsrc/Source engines for more than three years. For much of that time, I used to think it was fine to just "wing it" - never work in phases or plan in advance. That couldn't be farther from the truth, and I regret the years I've wasted on projects which inevitably failed as a result. We are lucky in that "detailing" for the Source engine mostly just requires piling props and decals on top of things, as opposed to DOOM, Quake, or Half-Life 1 where everything is effectively part of the level geometry and can be easily designed along with the general layout.

Do not squander the fact Source map development is very modular. Do not waste time detailing maps as you go along, because it'll be a major hassle to undo those changes when you need to redesign areas. Your art style will come out inconsistent and sloppy.

That's not to say A1 maps have to be hideous, though. Even when dev-blocking out a map I encourage everyone to alternate between teamcolors and grey for highlights - catching players' attention, et cetera. Even placeholder brush work can be designed to be fairly appealing. Early lighting, skybox ambience, and iconic props are fine too. Some things such as the ground can be textured and even displaced immediately.

But please oh please, don't completely rule out the utility of dev textures.

[Aly]

I used to detail and displace in my first alpha, I never even touched dev textures. It was horrible to edit, and people thought it was a complete map and didn't give me feedback.
Thus, I use dev textures on my latest map, and I'm loving their handyness.

[Bslashingu]

This discussion seriously comes up more than whether or not carving is good or bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aly

I used to detail and displace in my first alpha, I never even touched dev textures. It was horrible to edit, and people thought it was a complete map and didn't give me feedback.
Thus, I use dev textures on my latest map, and I'm loving their handyness.

100% true. When I did fully textured maps, it planted in their minds that the map was done and they were just playing it, and not testing. All the feedback I ever got was "this map sucks", "this looks out of place", "that building is floating."

I advise anyone that wants serious gameplay feedback to use dev textures instead of real textures. You can spit out a layout in a couple of hours, and begin getting feedback almost immediately if you have a plan. By texturing everything with legit textures, you're just going to get hung up on making them look perfect.

[Tapp]

I find that dev textures do 2 very important things. First, they can easily be replaced with nodraw. Secondly, they scream 'gameplay is being tested, not visuals!'. I map in 90% dev textures, I put in any major props which will be walked on/important and some thematic ideas so that I won't forget them. I never used to map in dev textures, but I discovered how much easier they are, and you also never forget what parts of the map you haven't finished detailing.

[grazr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaTony

I personally never use dev textures in not-testing maps. I hate them.

No, you use HL2 textures.

[owly-oop]

Imagine if no one used dev textures. Then this thread would be "detail your maps first since it looks better than plain textures"