Definitely because of HL2 etc. HL1 was a cultist mapping situation- to map you had to put in effort. Nowadays HL2 encourages n3wbs to map. Sux.
Get with the program then. Fishy already established that its "Other" " SRC="images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">
Wrong. You see, the HL1 engine wasn't a very strong one. You didn't have to bother adding tons of details and stuff like that in order to have something cool (not exceptional, but cool).
No but you had a much smaller window of success with HL1. Since 1,000 was the upper limit upon which true success was measured against I feel that it was a bit harder to succeed with HL1 than HL2 ever will be. Another point is, you didn't have a bunch of pre-made props to spice things up to take peoples minds off of boring architecture.
I'm siding with Myrk on this one. I am not siding against you Andy, but I think you misunderstood his reply.
What is your fixation with Orpheus? About every third complaint from you has his name attached to it. God, to hear you talk he was the glue that binds.
@ Mr. Reno. You more less captured my intent. You not only reflected my thoughts, but in a way, corroborated my earlier post in this thread. There is a difference here. It may or may not be boring exactly, but something was lost. I for one hope we recapture some of it.
I disagree on one point. We have more than enough people mapping right this moment. What we are lacking is interaction within them. When was the last critique? The last review? When was the last anything?
Its not the lack of mapping members, its the lack of the rest of us.
.
Exactly my point. Well said, sir .
And BTW, where is Orph?
Who cares about him anyway? Give it a rest.
Still I feel you two are missing a valid point. Think on it this way. Everyone knew 1,000 was the upper limit on maps. People tried to exceed it but damned few actually succeeded. The margin for error was incredibly tiny. Now theres the point you two are making. YES, the learning curve is much,much steeper, but the room for success is also much,much broader.
Making maps was harder with HL1 because of its small window of success. Far fewer people made it than you think. When you consider that everyone had the same opportunity for success with HL1 and so few did, thats got to say something for the difficulty factor.
Also, it sounds almost like neither of you truly comprehend the difficulty one faced making truly successfully maps for the HL1 engine. I could be totally off the mark, but just judging by your words, I think not.
Who cares about him anyway? Give it a rest.
Still I feel you two are missing a valid point. Think on it this
way. Everyone knew 1,000 was the upper limit on maps. People tried to
exceed it but damned few actually succeeded. The margin for error was
incredibly tiny. Now theres the point you two are making. YES, the
learning curve is much,much steeper, but the room for success is also
much,much broader.
Making maps was harder with HL1 because of its small window of success. Far fewer people made it than you think. When you consider that everyone had the same opportunity for success with HL1 and so few did, thats got to say something for the difficulty factor.
Also, it sounds almost like neither of you truly comprehend the difficulty one faced making truly successfully maps for the HL1 engine. I could be totally off the mark, but just judging by your words, I think not.
I have nothing against the man. I just find it odd that he is so often mentioned when someone finds it necessary to express themselves. Have some pride. If you cannot express yourselves freely, why bother expressing yourselves at all.
I also would like to clarify. My opinions on mapping are 100% Deathmatch based. I do not take any other mod into account and as such do not hold them liable for my feelings on the mapping community. You cannot compare easily Counter-Strike mapping with DM, nor can you truly compare Single-Player to TFC.
I still contend that it was harder to map for HLDM successfully. We each measure success differently to be sure, but any or all of us will eventually base our opinions on one factor. R_Speeds. No matter how well, or poorly it was made this is the base computing factor when success is made. Followed closely by the rest, such as: Fun factor,architecture,connectivity and so forth. You can rearrange your priorities any way you wish, but if you do not hold R_Speeds in the top slot you are... In denial.
As for clarifying how I determine the breath and width of success possibilities for HL2 compared to HL1. I feel the room for success is broader BECAUSE of the things you mention, not in spite of them. You can succeed with or without props. You can succeed with a large map or small. You can succeed even if its built poorly because of the cosmetics provided with props, you can succeed in many more ways than simply maintaining a low r_speeded map.
Elite? Hardly. My comments are simply stating my viewpoints and if they come across that way, its something you need to address not I since I am not the one whom is confused about them.
I would however like to say, I apologize for any misunderstanding about my position on the community. I am hardly against HL2 mapping since its the future of the site in general. My goal was to charge everyones engines in the hope of making some camaraderie and thereby possibly incite more into action.
