Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
« previous page 123
...
4
56 next page »
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Captain P on Wed Mar 1st at 1:07am 2006

I like that aspect - sticking to a general layout but having some freedom in making area's a bit larger/smaller and reshaping some corridors a bit, up to a reasonable extend.


Create-ivity - a game development blog



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Nickelplate on Wed Mar 1st at 1:35am 2006

? quoting Addicted to Morphine
Why not a template for a straight up deathmatch level -- akin to the oldschool fast paced DM settings that I remenisce about when I see what Quake is like nowadays.

I mean -- it may be kind of hard to get the areas to look too original with the stock textures, but I'm looking forward to playing with the geometry while maintaining the layout.

I've tried that, but the engines are different enough that an Arena-style map won't work. In HL2 you move too slow, can't jump high enough and don't have arena-style weapons like railguns and rocket launchers. I was a KILLER quake2 mapper in my later years. I tried using all my old techniques, and none worked...




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Mar 1st at 1:40am 2006

? quoting Nickelplate
I was a KILLER quake2 mapper in my later years....

*giggles*

Sure.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Nickelplate on Wed Mar 1st at 1:47am 2006

? quoting Orpheus
? quoting Nickelplate
I was a KILLER quake2 mapper in my later years....

*giggles*

Sure.

ITS TRUE! I made stuff that looked like the game itself!

Don't giggle too much or you WILL pee your pants. lol




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Mar 1st at 1:53am 2006

? quoting Nickelplate

ITS TRUE! I made stuff that looked like the game itself!

Don't giggle too much or you WILL pee your pants. lol

I know from personal experience exactly what crap looks like. My maps are filled with the stuff. So far, you have showed little to suggest "Game quality" <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">

and, my moisture content is none of your concern bucko





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Wed Mar 1st at 2:35am 2006

Fair enough, I guess HL2DM doesn't really fit with quakish deathmatch...

But we can still do a deathmatch map. Why not something fairly simply like a 2 - 4 player map?




Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Nickelplate on Wed Mar 1st at 4:37am 2006

? quoting Orpheus
So far, you have showed little to suggest "Game quality"

You've never seen my Quake 2 maps. "Game quality" for Q2 is not exactly HL2 won't you agree?




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Mar 1st at 1:07pm 2006

? quoting Nickelplate

You've never seen my Quake 2 maps. "Game quality" for Q2 is not exactly HL2 won't you agree?

Hold up. This started out as humor but it brings up an interesting thought. Do better engines make older greatness, less great?

I would think that if someone created a fantastic map for Doom, or Quake, that their achievements would still be, well great.

I wonder just how many people here believe that newer engines make older ones obsolete? Will we look back someday and think "Finger was good in his day but, Broken Palace is s**t now"

I hope I never do.

*whispers*

You map, just fine, Nickelbag.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Wed Mar 1st at 1:30pm 2006

I go back and play Doom 1 every now and again and I still think its great.

I think that it really depends on the person. Some people can't appreciate the older stuff now that they've played around with cutting edge technology.




Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Andrei on Wed Mar 1st at 1:52pm 2006

Hehe, I still map for Wolf3D. And I'm loving it. <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif">




Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Nickelplate on Wed Mar 1st at 3:29pm 2006

New greatness does not trump old greatness. But better quality tectures and 3D textures and all that stuff makes fancy brushwork obsolete. Whereas in Q2 I had to make about 40 polygons to make a cool-looking wall, Now in HL2 I have to make like 4 and some props and maybe a displacement.


I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Mar 1st at 3:57pm 2006

? quoting Nickelplate
New greatness does not trump old greatness. But better quality tectures and 3D textures and all that stuff makes fancy brushwork obsolete. Whereas in Q2 I had to make about 40 polygons to make a cool-looking wall, Now in HL2 I have to make like 4 and some props and maybe a displacement.

And the discussion comes full circle.

I seem to recall a certain debate where "I" under the guise of UD said exactly the same thing. I said that it was many times harder to create a top quality map using HL1 that it would be with HL2, since you had to do it with much greater restrictions and stay within the engines capability.

I was told emphatically, as a nobody I had no opinion.

I don't remember who told me that, but it was many of them saying it.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Nickelplate on Wed Mar 1st at 3:59pm 2006

I've always thought that.


I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Wed Mar 1st at 4:20pm 2006

Orph, I was one of the people debating with you. My stance was that with fewer limitations a mapper has a harder time of making an area look good, because he's reponsible for so much more than just brushwork on a scope thats limited by the engine. The restrictions of the engines capabilities made it easier rather than harder, in my opinion. Before you could get away with flat surfaces where nowadays you have to break up every surface with architectural embellishments to make an area look professional.




Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Mar 1st at 8:07pm 2006

? quoting Addicted to Morphine
Before you could get away with flat surfaces where nowadays you have to break up every surface with architectural embellishments to make an area look professional.

See, herein lies your defect. What ever made you think that you could "get away with it?"

I for one have not altered my views on "What exactly make a great map succeed" one iota.

You are working under a false assumption that we at Snarkpit allowed people to make flat areas because they were incapable of creating anything else.

Guess what? None of the maps that scored well around here had a plethora of flatness. We did take many other things into account but flat was definitely one of the key things we looked on.

If a map had incredible r_speeds but was still plain, we commented that their optimization process needed work. If an area was tweaked to the max, but still had R_Speeds out the ass, we asked them to SIMPLIFY the architecture a bit.

The question is, where in the world did you get the idea that creating a map for HL1 was simple? If not simple, then simpler than HL2?

Both assumptions are bulls**t and I have the years to back the statement up.

Its not as if I showed up here yesterday is all.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by ReNo on Wed Mar 1st at 8:48pm 2006

I think that talent in lesser engines doesn't really mean squat in newer engines - demands are far higher now, and being able to make a sexy HL1 map doesn't mean you can make a sexy HL2, or Doom 3, or even worse, UE3 map. You could have been a kick ass Doom level designer, and have made some of the most visually impressive levels around in their day, but that doesn't guarantee you greatness in any newer engine. The same holds true for people who made some good Quake or whatever maps - the demands placed upon the person, artistically more than anything, have been ramped up so steeply that some people simply will not be able to meet the challenge. I know that I need to step up my act to compete - people aren't likely to hire me for next gen games simply because I've got some nice HL1 maps.

Note that I'm talking fairly exclusively about graphics here - gameplay is, arguably, more timeless and transferable.



Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Wed Mar 1st at 8:55pm 2006

? quoting Orpheus
The question is, where in the world did you get the idea that creating a map for HL1 was simple? If not simple, then simpler than HL2?

Both assumptions are bulls**t and I have the years to back the statement up.



I don't mean to belittle HL1 or cut down all the people who made maps for HL1, but mapping for HL1 is definitely simpler than HL2.

You have more experience than I do when it comes to the HL1 custom mapping scene, but that doesn't invalidate my opinion about the two engines. Just by playing through the singleplayer in both HL1 and HL2 it immediately becomes apparent that less time needs to be spent creating an area in HL1 compared to an area in HL2.

Look at this for example: image

This was a key puzzle area in HL1, not just a corridor. Every surface of the room is flat and simplistic. Compare that to any key puzzle area in HL2, not just the corridors, and you'll see a stark difference (increase) in complexity and therefore difficulty and effort required for creation.

In terms of size and scope alone the limitations of HL1 render it more simplistic when compared to HL2.

Additionally, understanding the workings of the new technology capabilites like 3D skyboxes, custom soundscapes, and the new I/O system make producing a custom map more daunting, more complicated, and much more time consuming.

I understand your point that working within the limitations of HL1 was a challenge in itself, because people had to innovate and optimize in order to get the most out of the engine. But that hasn't gone away. The source engine has its own limitations and working within them is a challenge as well. Maybe one could argue that it is a smaller challenge to map for HL2 because one is less restricted, but I'd say it's even more of a challenge because you have more freedom to work and therefore one has to think bigger and deliver more impressive results. By pushing the limits by developing a new game engine, it seems to me that Valve and others have raised the bar and with it everyone's expectations.

The only thing that is easier now is creating terrain, thanks to displacements, but since its so easy to create them, people are held to a much higher standard when it comes to how they look and how they compare to the rest of the level. You still have to make displacements look natural and you have to make them fit in with the rest of the real brushwork. Before, the rock formations were more symbolic representations and less realistic presentations. Compare cs_militia from HL1 to its new Source iteration:

image
image

So, in light of all these points: yes, creating a map for HL1 is simpler than Hl2.

If you still don't believe me consider this: I've looked through your map profiles and you are a better and more prolific HL1 mapper than I. But your first-hand knowledge of HL1 doesn't seem to extend as thoroughly to Source. Try creating and completing a high quality Source map and you'll see firsthand the complexities and challenges I'm talking about. And before you go and tell me to do the same for HL1, you'll see that I've at least tried to create a few maps. I still have much to learn when it comes to both HL1 and HL2, but I think I have a balanced perspective on both, and what I see is what I've argued. <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">




Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Captain P on Wed Mar 1st at 9:20pm 2006

I definitely agree with AtM here. Several techniques have changed over time and without adapting to these, old techniques wear off.

The single fact that creating content that lives up to nowadays expectations takes so much longer means different approaches are necessary. Back in the HL days, you could create a detailed area and throw it away without having lost too much time (or motivation, or more).
Nowadays, creating a few detailed prop models that finally won't get used means the same loss in time, but now it's just a few models only rather than a full scene.

The increased importance of prop models (which personally I've always liked a lot so that really was an advantage for me when I started playing with Source) leaves brush-detailers behind in the dust if they don't catch up with the new developments.


In essence, it's not extremely more difficult to map for Source in a technical sense. It's the immensively increase in quality expectations and some different techniques being used that make it harder. It takes a broader skillset and more time and for many, concentration and motivation spans may just not be enough anymore for such production times.


Create-ivity - a game development blog



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Mar 1st at 9:31pm 2006

*sighs repeatedly*

Why are you guys trying so hard to miss my point?

I am not saying its easier now to make a map. FAR FROM IT!!!

What I am saying is, you had to physically work harder to make a map "EXCELLENTLY" with HL1 than HL2

Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp? Its not as if I am saying that a ported excellent map from HL1 will be superb in HL2. I doubt it seriously that the map would port and retain anything that made it great.

What I am trying desperately to convey is, you had a VERY narrow success window in HL1. You have a much broader success window in HL2.

Its true that both mapping engine have highly successful, BUT boring examples. I am not counting those because the people voting those maps into success are STUPID!. I lost count of how many killboxes I have seen played thousands of times. Its a damned good thing that true success isn't defined by played totals.

Now for the last time, try to understand my one point. It is harder to succeed in HL1 than HL2 because to tools for success were much harder to create.

Please try not to reword my reply in the hopes of making my words sound contrary to the issue.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Wed Mar 1st at 10:36pm 2006

I didn't twist your words... in fact I directly quoted you and responded as effectively as I could. I thought I did a satisfactory job of disproving you.

I'll try again -- once more starting with a direct quote:
? quoting Orpheus
What I am saying is, you had to physically work harder to make a map "EXCELLENTLY" with HL1 than HL2


Everything is bigger and more complex in the Source engine. Because of this, you have to work harder and spend more time to make an excellent map.

Expectations have been raised, levels are more expansive and realistic, more details have to be added and addressed to reach a level of excellence. So, no in my opinion you do not have to physically work harder to make an "excellent" HL1 map.





« previous page 123
...
4
56 next page »
Post Reply