The following is an article from the guy who designed Dust and Dust2, which I found online at http://www.johnsto.co.uk/design/making_dust2 :
The Making Of: Dust 2
Introduction
With the popularity of Dust, it would have been stupid of me not to create another Dust map. I started actually thinking seriously about this a year after I made Dust, but didn’t actually start doing anything until much later. Making a sequel was always going to be tough given the success of Dust – and the pressure was incredible.
Originally, I was never going to release the map under the Dust name, nor even try to make it an official map – I didn’t think I’d be able to meet people’s expectations. However, it had to have the name ‘dust’ in the title. Naturally, the map would have been named Dust 2, but that didn’t feel right. I believe sequels should improve on the original, and I didn’t feel confident that would happen. ‘Dust 1.5′ would have been more appropriate if the map was based on Dust and shared much of the layout, but I wanted a new layout. ‘Dust 3′ seemed better – the third sequel in a series of movies is usually never as good as the first two, so that name stuck.
Sticking to a Theme
There are several items that a Dust map must have in order to stick to the Dust theme, and Dust 3 had to include all of them, used correctly and precisely. Even now, years after Dust was unleashed, I have yet to see more than a couple of Dust maps not made by myself that I feel reflects the Dust theme accurately. The ones I did play didn’t feel like Dust, they missed out on the things that made Dust popular, as well as the basic components. Dust 3 couldn’t end up like that.
The Arches
Of all the components in a Dust map, the arches separating areas play a very important role. Their main role is just that – to separate the map into identifiable sections to which players can relate and remember. Aesthetically they are required to stop the map looking like a maze of walls with gaps to let players through. Consider how Dust would have looked without the arches:
Dust without its famous TF-inspired arches.
Doesn’t look bad, but the arches add something and give the designer more freedom and opportunities to shape the dynamics of the map. Of course, this is an unfair comparison since Dust was built with arches in mind. The arches were taken directly from TF2, so all credit to the designer at Valve for doing what seems like such a minor creation.
The Road
I decided early on in Dust’s development that there should be a clear route around the map – in this case, via the stone road. Although it’s purpose isn’t obvious, the road takes you to every part of the map provided you just follow it and assists not only the players, but the developer too. Without the road, Dust starts to resemble a maze:
Dust without any roads, making it hard to determine direction.
The Trim
The Dust trim personally is a component of the Dust theme that requires the most attention with regard to how it is used. It is easy to consider it as a texture to stick in the places where brick or concrete doesn’t fit, and usually this works – but it is very easy to use it for totally the wrong purposes too. Pillars – which don’t feature in the Dust theme at all – would be an obvious target for the Dust trim. It’s very easy to overuse the trim – which results in a map which looks far too ‘nice’ and sculpted.
I devised a rule which I tried to stick to – the trim should never be placed such that a player could walk over it, and should never appear striped across a surface more than twice, once if possible (i.e., trim at top and bottom of a wall is ok, but if had one in the middle too, that would be bad).
The Sun
Part of Dusts ‘charm’ was its brightness – many of the CS maps at the time were dark and gloomy, hence fitting with the CS theme. Dust wasn’t like that – it was relatively easy to see where you were going and who was there, and made for comfortable playing. I’d often been asked to change Dust so it was set at night, but in doing so it was no longer Dust. Dust 3 had to maintain the same amount of sunlight and the same degree of contrast.
The Design
Dust 3 would not have resembled Dust if it didn’t steal some parts of the map outright – I couldn’t add new ideas or design elements unless they were quite subtle and didn’t detract from the theme that Dust had established. It was for this reason that Dust 3 had to keep some key elements – like the ‘Dust doors’, the ramps, the labelled bomb sites, the various random buildings and raised concrete areas.
Keeping It Simple
The one thing that would make or break Dust 3 was its layout. Get it wrong, and it would have presented a very boring game indeed. Get it right, and it might rival Dust. I spent a long time looking at the layout of Dust trying to work out exactly why it seemed to play so well. Eventually I deduced that it was, in its most basic form, a figure of eight with a couple of extra entanglements. Dust 3 would need to follow the same pattern, not just to play well, but to feel like Dust.
Just for comparison, I’ve superimposed an ‘eight’ over Dust – the centre of the eight reflects the major conflict area. On Dust 2 however, the eight doesn’t quite fit geometrically, but the layout almost follows it. However, the centre still sits in one major conflict area of the map.
Dust and Dust 2 both share a rough figure-of-eight route layout.
Starting Out
To get a layout of the qualities I needed – simplicity – I couldn’t take the Dust approach and build the map bit by bit without considering the map as a whole first. I needed to at least draft out a layout or two beforehand, establish some of the requirements, and work from there. This helped enormously to get the map started and have the first area lead out onto the paths that would fit the rest of the map.
Early Dust 2 sketches showing bomb spots.
The image on the left shows roughly what my first sketch was like – terrible. The starting points were ill-chosen (direct line of fire moments after spawning!), the sketch was not to even a nearly sensible scale, and the design was a mess of redundant tunnels and obstacles. However, the CT spawn (bottom-right), more or less survived.
The right-hand sketch shows the one I did after – the CT spawn area has stayed almost the same (bottom-left now), and the bomb positions remain. The difficult bit was working out how the rest of the map should have gone. I knew I had to get an ‘underpass’-style ramp in there somehow (top-right), but I had no idea what it would lead to.
One of the most peculiar decisions I took at this stage was to add rock to the Dust theme. The textures had always been there, but I never used them in Dust. It was, in my opinion, risky to use them in Dust 2 since it would have broken continuity, but I decided that the map needed something different, and so I tried it.
The Early Dust 3
It took a couple of days to take the design I had pencilled out and actually create it. The main problem came halfway – I realised the dimensions of the map didn’t really relate to the designs as much as I had hoped, and hence I had very little room to create the terrorist side of the map. Even still, I didn’t really have a plan for the terrorist side.
I can’t remember how the terrorist side of the map developed, but it was a squeeze fitting it in – it was originally larger. I could have moved the whole map over to provide more space, but for some reason I didn’t. Thankfully it turned out well.
Alpha
The first few versions of Dust 3 shared common features – the bomb sites were as in the diagram, and the map lacked certain polish. From the shots below some of the changes are clear. The bomb site takes place on a single plane, it has two entrances only, and little to get excited about in terms of game play except a crate or two. The images on the right show the junction between the bomb site and the terrorist start (at that time terrorists started where the CT’s do now) – with a light alcove in the building on the right and a plain boring wall showing some geometry in the distance. Not too nice. It was not possible to climb on the rocks.
Original bomb site and ramp area.
Original bomb site and ramp area other angles.
It was around this time that I let Brian Martel (of Gearbox) in on the map, and he subsequently suggested fixing the Dust rock textures (which previously had a slightly light border at the seams), as well as wall markings to dictate the direction of the bomb targets. Given that Dust 3 was slightly more complex than Dust – the layout was less apparent – this probably helped many players.
Copy and Create
In making Dust 3, it had to retain many similarities to Dust – as mentioned earlier. There were certain elements that had to stay to keep to the theme. In this respect, it made creating the map easier, since I knew how the elements would fit together. However, every map needs some originality, which can be a challenge with the Dust theme.
Copy
More astute players would have noticed many items ‘borrowed’ from Dust. I don’t mean in terms of theme – that had to remain – but various elements of Dust which appear almost verbatim in Dust 2.
The ‘flat bomb site’ from the Dust 3 alpha was quite a terrible creation. It lacked anything that a good bomb site needed – cover and a variety of defensive and offensive strategies. Visually, it was just lacking. To recover from this, I needed to steal some elements from Dust. One way of creating a ‘realistic’ map is to include elements to which the player can relate to. To make Dust 3 feel right, I had to include elements from the map that did the groundwork beforehand. Consider:
Dust and Dust 2 share very similar spawn site layouts.
The ramp pictured above was always set in my mind as something that would definitely appear in Dust 3, but only in conjunction with the ‘L’ shaped wall alongside it. I personally think very highly of that ramp, although it really isn’t anything special.
Dust and Dust 2 also share similar ramp-to-underpass layouts.
Again, notice the similarity – two ramps which both head down into darkness. In Dust 3, the T’s would have started at the higher end of the ramp. This later changed to the CT’s in the underpass in Dust 2.
Create
I took several style risks in Dust 3. Firstly, there was the rock, and what was labelled as ‘detail’ at the time. As you can see in the image on the left (below), I added some debris just sitting in the space between the crates and the rock. I was very hesitant about this – I never put such detail into Dust and Dust 3 didn’t really need it. However, by taking the additional risk of breaking through the wall, I had to back it up with some evidence of activity. The debris was there to make the hole seem more appropriate.
Breaks from the norm – Dust 2 includes ‘detail’ and a staircase.
Not only that, but the crates were sitting nervously at awkward angles, as if the laws of physics had tumbled them around a little. Again, I was wary that this would break from the theme.
The staircase (pictured right) was also unnerving. Dust never had stairs of more than a couple of steps, and Dust 3 was set to have a circular staircase, and in a tight area too. However, I needed some passage between those two areas, and the staircase seemed to fit and provide some interesting conflict.
Conclusion
Once Cliffe heard of Dust 3, he seemed to be most interested – which is totally understandable – at the time Dust was the most played map of any game by a long shot. He provided some useful feedback, the primary changes being the movement of the enclosed bomb spot (previously in the centre of the map) to the T start (Dust 2’s CT start), moving the T’s to the CT start, and moving the CT’s into the underpass. They all turned out to be extremely well-informed decisions.
One problem was the name. As explained before, I never really thought that Dust 2 would be appropriate. If Dust 3 was going to be included in CS, I was told it had to be renamed to Dust 2. The primary reason was continuity, and to avoid many ‘what about Dust 2′ e-mails which would have flooded in. Ultimately I had to remind myself that Dust wasn’t mine anymore – it was my creation, yes, but it belonged to Counter-Strike. Dust 3 had to fit in with Counter-Strike, and the only way that would happen was by changing its name to Dust 2.
Dust 2 has done remarkably well. I never believed it would even compete with Dust for longer than a few weeks – but since then it has become preferred by many people. I thought maybe the name did it, and indeed that probably helps. Apparently though, it’s more fun to play than Dust is. It’s certainly different to Dust – it’s tighter and more interweaved – which I thought could be a negative aspect. However, despite my concerns, it did better than I could ever have anticipated.
Addendum: Modern Dust 2
Like Dust, Dust 2 is now a few years old, but has moved on from Counter-Strike and was graphically renovated in both Counter-Strike: Condition Zero and Counter-Strike: Source. The map has not changed a significant deal since Dust 2 has remained a staple map for serious competitions and events.
Counter-Strike: Condition Zero
Like Dust 1, this version of Dust 2 shares much in common with the original, and is largely based on the original brushwork. The map is notably more vivid and strong in its appearance, with an overall more colourful appearance helped by the additional detail. A few changes have been sneaked in, such as crate placement around bomb sites, but otherwise the map serves as a nicer updated version of the original.
Dust 2 as it appears in Counter-Strike: Condition Zero.
This version was primarily worked on by Ritual, although some finishing touches were added by Valve just before release of the game.
Counter-Strike: Source
This represents how Dust 2 looks today. This Dust features a whole host of improvements, from the improved skybox (it really does feel like the middle of a desert now), improved building structures, additional detail, village clutter, as well as slight changes in the layout of the bombsites to improve the game.
Dust 2 as it appears in Counter-Strike: Source.
This renovation of Dust 2 was done at Valve following the renovation of the original Dust.
Conclusion 2
To this day I am still amazed that such a simple map could go as far as it has, but a lot of people have helped along the way from Jess Cliffe and Chris Ashton at the very beginning, through to Brian Martel, Richard Gray, Kristen Perry, Ido Magal, and a whole plethora of other behind-the-scenes workers. I haven’t touched the map for several years now, and it keeps marching on.
At any point in time, Dust 2 is host to around 30,000 players, around 15% of all online gamers (source). Combined with the original Dust, this accounts 20% – 1 in 5 of all players currently playing any online FPS.
