Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The reason map editing was so easy in older games, like Duke 3D, is that those games were based on 2.5D engines (Doom, Wolf, Duke, Blood, pretty much every FPS up until Quake). Those engines are, by design, easier to make maps on. Simply put, they draw lines horizontally then stretch them vertically up the screen to simulate a 3D environment. Hence why you can just draw lines with the mouse in the editors. It's a very efficient, but hopelessly dated, way of displaying 3D graphics. Modern games don't work like that. They create true digital 3D environments on screen, which look far more realistic, and have infinitely better physics, but are also much harder to build maps for. It's not nearly as simple as it was back in the day.
If you don't believe me, compare the simplicity of Doom Builder to GTK Radiant, then compare them both to SnapMap. SnapMap is easily the most user friendly, GTK is the most capable, and Doom Builder offers a good balance but only works on oldschool 2.5D engine games.
In short, a true map editor would be cool, but it is absolutely a big undertaking for the devs to make such a tool that is user-friendly enough to be public. Modern games just don't work like what you're describing. It is asking for a lot.