@Anonymous Cowherd: Thanks for the suggestion.

You might want to add here that it HAS been given a facelift, "Time to die" by Shadow, at lvlworld.com/reviews/id:1844

There are so many custom maps available, and because of this, both looks AND gameplay are important to me; I look at maps as a whole. So while I could settle for a map with excellent gameplay and poor asthetics, I don't have to. I can easily find one that looks beautiful while playing well. That's why I personally don't recommend this map.

But hey, some people turn off all the eye-candy for optimal fps, for that extra "edge" that 200 fps will give over 185 fps. For these people, this map rocks! :)

I agree with Tig, the map just doesn't feel finished in it's present form :( That hasn't stopped me downloading it or playing it however, but I think aesthetics are important. That's why it got 7/10, would have scored 8 or maybe 9 if it looked sweet too

Game play is very important to me (and a lot of other people). How a map looks effects the atmosphere and the ambience of a map from the moment you start it. This is important to others. Both a valid, both should be heard.

I have no problem playing a level which is focused on game play only, but I'm always thinking, I wish someone would help this mapper finish this level off, give the level a coherent style or theme, help the mapper to make this map a great level, not just one thats fun to play.

First impressions are very important, not just for mapping but for almost everything. Not everyone can see past first impression and thats fine, its part of life.

There is nothing wrong with the review, it is Daniel's opinion and he took the time to download the level from the map queue, play it, do a write up and send it in. If people feel strongly about the reviews they are welcome to comment (like what has happened here) or start reviewing levels themself. Its an open, public system, everyone is invited and discussion is healthy for both the site and reviewers.

No rule needed, but it would be great if one could see what each reviewer deems high when reviewing maps. For instance, reviewer A favours CTF maps with a space theme where he recommends custom textres, reviewer B likes duel maps without TP's and considers textures less important regardless if they're id or custom.

Should there not be some kind of rule where reviewers aren't focussing on looks above all else?

Agreed, this map has a nice flowing layout. The item placement is also excellent. Although the map was designed for cpma, I found most of the jumps accesable enough in VQ3.

Those bots really do like open maps don't they!! I got wasted by the NM bot.

7/10 from me

Like I sad , this level is especially for Cpma, and thanks to you Krekits and Wviperw. If gameplay is good - I gain my point.

This map is much better with CPMA than with VQ3. Bot play in VQ3 is exactly like wviperw says, human opponents is probably much more fun that games against bots.

Looks could be much better though, and the steep stairways must be approached with caution; it would have been better if the step height had been 8 units.

This review is clearly a case of the preference for looks over gameplay. Maps should be recommended for the gameplay first and foremost, and then the looks part of it is an added bonus.

Anyway, played the map in CPMA (like the author intended). Very, very fun IMO. Its got kind of a simple large-ish feel to it, which can be good for promode physics. I played NM Major, and the first game--I couldn't believe it--she SPANKED me!! It was like 26-11 her. Its mostly due to the huge amt of openness in the level, so the bots really can take advantage of their godlike aim. I'm glad to say however, that in the next game I returned the spanking. 22-3 :P