The map's gameplay is pure genius!
I don't see much wrong with the looks either, tbh... but I'm not really much of an expert in that department.
It makes me sad to see that after almost 2 years few other q3 custom maps have managed to give me this much fun and enjoyment while playing the game.
I suppose the gameplay won't interest you much if you never liked the fast paced matches of q1dm4, but if you did ... oh, what a gem!
And yeh Juz, this box is wayyyy too small...
The textures aren't brilliant but i did find they grew on me and now i quite like the feel of the map. Also it maintains the feel of the Q1 original, which I think is a good thing.
I think that too much detail on this map would have made an absolute mess of it.
Bot play isn't brilliant either, but show me a map where the bot play is good, and i'll show you a UT map. To be honest i have yet to find a q3a map which is actually fun to play against the bots, they're too easy and they're pretty darn stupid.
Against humans its great fun to play, its fast and great for rocket jumping and actually thinking while you play rather than just running about shooting everything that moves.
And i seem to remember the lvl reviewers not long ago complaining about the fact that everyone always used the same weapons, the rocket and rail, and then you turn around and imply that leaving out a rail is a bad thing.
And i have to say i agree with Hi-C, he sounds like some kind of genius :)
(Has anyone noticed this box is reeeeeeeaaaaaalllllllyyyyy small?)
But I think Quaker-X is clearly on firm ground in liking the id maps -- even all of the id maps.
undealDDisney: I won't remake reptilian1. I've stated before that I just enjoy making maps and hearing what people have to say, so it makes no differance in my mind if you give it a 10 or a 0, as long as you can justify it. I've learned, and my next map will be better for it.
Hi-C: I do agree that i could've used a few more textures, but you are right that the amount doesn't = the quality. and, yeah, id isn't the best in the world at maps, but they set the standard, even if custom mappers can easily out do it.
I definitely see your point. Well said. You are right about some of the id maps. They had to create some simpler maps for the newer users.
Also, the visuals are sometimes a bit busy for my taste as well. Some of the custom mappers have achieved an even more integrated and cohesive architecture than id. But the standard was still very high to start with, and I'd say that the fact that custom mappers have at times done even better only strengthens my point by showing that the standards could rise even further.
Thanks for reading.
Zarathustra -somehow I think, your the only adult in our bunch of comment-makers (including me). I'm impressed.
But I think criticizing the level for using "four main textures" is not terribly devestating. Count the wall textures on DM6 sometime. ;) Much greater maps than DM6, for that matter, have been made with as few as that.
Also, when Zarathustra calls for interesting gameplay and visuals, and then says "This is the standard that id Software has set for us," I'm, well, amused. id's house style is heavy ornamentation over simple layouts for newbies. It's mainly doodads and linearity (granted, with one or two exceptions). A standard that turns its back on over half a decade's worth of cool fps mapping, to say the least. If Scampie, with this retro level remake, creates something more interesting than another go on id's maps or their many dutiful clones, then good work, Scampie.
We can talk until the end of time about what is good in a map. But the best measure of a map is against the map "state of the art." This means comparing your map to what the best of the best can produce given the same basic medium.
To me, this settles the argument. The best of the best have great visuals and gameplay. Period. No excuses.
A map looks awesome, with great design, but it has a few small visual errors. Visuals: 4
The map has middle of the road gameplay for one reason or another: Gameplay 2
So the score is 6.
Another map is really not exciting to look at, but not completely annoying. Visuals 2
The gameplay is really good and no complaints. Gameplay: 5
So the score is 7.
A (pretend) example:
Visuals are excellent: 5
Gameplay is very good, but I've seen better: 4
I meant that you should try to deliver the best of both worlds. Those example maps I listed try to deliver the best of both, not the "middle" of both.
They are creative enough to generate stunning visuals within reasonable system specs and fun gameplay. Poor visuals cannot be excused just because you "concentrated on gameplay." These people did not need to resort to that explanation.
Unexciting visuals can be overlooked and the level can be enjoyed, but the overall excitement will be lower, and the fan base will be smaller.
Personally, I usually give gameplay 5 and visuals a 5. If a level looks like total crap but is fun as hell, it gets a 5, maybe a 6. If a level is gorgeous, but is brain-dead on gameplay, it gets a 5 or maybe a 4. But levels that look as beautiful as that are usually not made by brain-dead people, so the score is usually higher than that.
Besides, I had fun doing this map and have gotta some positive comments from people who enjoyed playing it. And that's all I need to feel good about a map.
Quaker-X: Thank you for the comment.
Zarathustra: Agreed. Gameplay and looks should balance somewhere in the middle.
I think of maps like little movies. The movies that you talk about with your friends and never forget (like Aliens, or Star Wars) had the best of both worlds. A good story and good visuals to back up and accentuate the story.
Do it any way you like, but presonally I only like maps by map makers who go for that "cinematic" quality that captures the imagination and has substance to boot.
Examples: Tig's Den, Nemesis Online, Khaooohs, Blood Run, Lunar Outpost, Corilois Storm, etc. etc. etc.
YOU OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF !
You need to sign up for evening classes in Interior design and humility.
Was Reptilian1 a fluke or something?
A primary example of the RIGHT way to convert a map is ztn's Blood Run. He did an excellent job of re-doing the map for Q3A. And when I say "re-doing" I mean it. He re-built it with new geometry, textures, lighting and physics.
And it didn't hurt that it was already a popular map.
People who are really good at gameplay ideas, but not so good at architecture and texturing will be sensitive when the look of a map is not liked. And those who are really good at aesthetics will not like it when someone bypasses their work of art to say that the "gameplay stinks."
This is why it may be best to try to produce the best of both gameplay and aesthetics if you can. This is pretty much the way most of the top maps are being made at this point.
Try to put intereting gameplay and interesting visuals in a map. There is no way around it IMO. Otherwise, you'll take arrows from one side or the other.
This is the standard that id Software has set for us, and people pretty much expect maps to be of that caliber now. Those maps look undeniably good and play undeniably well. And, if I remember, users even complained about the system specs and performance of those maps, as good as they are. Surely maps that shoot for less than the id maps already deliver will not be as exciting to the general public.
If you want to deviate from this way of doing things, then maybe it would help to state so in the readme. An example might be: "This is a straight quick and dirty conversion from Q1 for fans of this map. Take it for what it is.")
...But don't expect accolades from the public. My sense is that "quick and dirty" or even somewhat hastily done conversions of old maps are not that much in vogue right now. They just aren't. In truth, I've seen people bitch up a storm time and time again when someone releases one. This is especially true if the old map is not well known already from the "old days."
So, although you will find an audience of some size no matter what you produce, the numbers get correspondingly smaller as you limit yourself to one aspect of map making at the expense of another.
Gameplay makes the map fun to play against people. I'm sorry, but id included bots that are complete pants, and the only reason they did was to generate more sales from people without internet access. IMO, bots navigate the map well enough to be the shooting gallery ducks id intended them to be. But in the future I will work to make the bots better at my maps.
I get a 200 ping to most servers. I've learnt to live with it. I have alot of friends from europe, and yes a few of them have high pings, but only if they play on US servers. Not a problem to for them to play Euro servers. And futhermore, maps have always and forever be the greatest thing to have at a LAN party. No need to worry bout ping, only your framerate.
You must relieze that a map designed with very low framerate will preform for nothing on any connection (LAN Modem T1 ect.) So maps must be made for everyone in mind and should focus on gameplay before framerate.
Now my other rant.
The review. Well hmm... It makes my map sound like it's one notch below a fullbright box map. Yes there are few textures used, but this comes from the original, which accually used less. The textures are something I've heard about alot. Some people hate them (hi Gu4rDi4n!), some like them. The reviewer pointed out the gameplay was good, altho it's not the greatest 1on1 map. Better for about 3-5. "No rail gun" Yep thats true, but why does it need to be pointed out? Not every map includes every weapon. Saying "no rail gun" is saying "this map is cool, except this weapon is not included, and therefore is worth shit." Maybe the review should have read the textfile and figured out that the map is a conversion from Q1 and I decided to keep the map pure from Q3 weapons as much as possible (except the plasmagun is cool, good for speeding up the play). Bot are too easy on any map.
NotoriousRay: I'm not going to hide behind that. Yes it's a conversion. But I feel this version is stronger then the Q1.
Gu4rDi4N: Thanks for the comment! =