| ? posted by G.Ballblue |
|
A_S, the map so far looks good.... But... I'm a little worried. Must of the maps that come out of the snarkpit appear to graphic show maps (No offense to anyone! really!). I kinda feel that your average HL player isn't going to be TO concerened with graphics -- since most them are absolutely fine with playing the all time 1 texture map "kill box" Dedicated server runners out there are paying about 52 $ a month to run their public server. So naturally, they don't want to waste any money -- they are going to try and cram as many players into one map. So, they aren't going to want a small map. From my playing experience as an HL player (not mapper), I tend to want nice big fat maps --- they have more replay value, they are funner, and there is generally more in-genious ways to get lost and explore the map I think everyone here needs to not be so picky about each graphical flaw, and "how it doesn't look like an UT map". Focus more on a map that is simply fun to play, and won't be used up in 30 seconds. Design the maps as if they were single player maps -- naturally, you want all the map you can get into your map. Remember: Valve releases God awful looking maps every patch, and cs and HL players just eat them right up. Probably because they're fun. Just my /2 dollars... Yippie Ki Yay! |
Good points, but there is no excuse to have graphical flaws in your map, and personally I am grateful when people point out things I've missed. If you're going to spend the time to make a great map gameplay-wise, don't bring it down by f**king up the architecture and texturing.
I'd like to say I agreed with you, as I once held such beliefs, putting gameplay first and looks later. However, my experience with the HL community has taught me a few things that caused me to sadly reject gameplay as number one. Firstly, there's the prevalence of killbox maps, which shows that players are stupid and that maps with no gameplay or graphics whatsoever can succeed. The majority of HL players want mindless slaughter with no strategy or thought behind it. That's not gameplay. Secondly, back when map review sites actually existed many reviewers masturbated all over 'good looking' maps lauding them as great. To me these maps had very little gameplay and just plain sucked. They were looks over substance. I know few agree with me, but I feel that Manson's maps looked good but played like s**t, yet many servers ran his maps. Obviously at this time if you wanted your map to be played it had to look damn good to get the glowing reviews from these sites. Sadly, these two things taught me that if you wanted people to play your maps it really had nothing to do with gameplay.
Honest to God, when I released Torque I couldn't understand how it didn't get LOTW or awesome marks from review sites. It had the exact gameplay I wanted. I playtested the thing with PhineasBot for hours. I had great mappers from the DRS clan giving me advice about it. It was well received at a LMC playtest. But it didn't have the graphics to back up the gameplay. I wasted a great layout and design by not working on texture choices, lighting, and architecture, and I regretted it, as I wanted other people to play my map and have fun in the process.
