How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???

Yeah, TWHL had a fixed layout compo lately. I'm for that as well, as layouts take a lot of time to work out for me too.

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

why not just a single player map with no loads (i.e. one map).
judge and how fun the map is, so if some one wants to make a big map or
small map they can as long as its fun.

I pretty much say this because I've started a map and dont want limits
to stop me from doing it... so I if the above idea doesn't hold water
I'm with the template map.

man... single player maps require so much more.... work..

---

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

<span style="color: silver;">I like the template idea...it's a good way to implement a limit on the size of the map, which is also a good idea.

Single player is a pretty unique proposal for this forum...I don't see much of that around here, so, it might not be a bad idea.

I'm all for any of these plans. We'll see what happens.
</span>

---

-~}*{~-

Ahh, another gray typer. What gives?

To each his own Frenchy :smile:

If we decide to do the template who is going to whip it up for us?

At least it is a brighter shade of grey, to the extent that it is still perfectly easy and comfortable to read :smile:

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

I say yes to a limited area size arena, but I say nay to any kind of templates. Screw templates. Though, I don't really see how we could have a competition where you choose between HL1 and HL2...that's just not gonna work, cuz we all know HL1 rocks the face off of HL2...

But seriously, I hope we dont do any templates, especially if it's gonna be a single player deal, in which case I know I would wanna make some huge and meandering extravaganza of 1 player fun.

I wouldn't recommend the template idea for a single player level - only if it was to be a multiplayer thing.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

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 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

Addicted to Morphine said:
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

Nickelplate said:
I was a KILLER quake2 mapper in my later years....

giggles

Sure.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I was a KILLER quake2 mapper in my later years....

giggles

Sure. </div></div>

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

Nickelplate said:
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" :wink:
and, my moisture content is none of your concern bucko

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

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?

Orpheus said:
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

Nickelplate said:
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.

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.

Hehe, I still map for Wolf3D. And I'm loving it. :biggrin:

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

Nickelplate said:
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. :rolleyes:

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

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I've always thought that.

---

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

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.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Addicted to Morphine</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>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.
</DIV></DIV>

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.

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.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Orpheus said:
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:

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:





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. :smile:

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

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. :sad:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

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:

Orpheus said:
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.

I think I get what your saying Orph.

HL mapping was difficult because you didn't have the advantage of awesome lighting, larger scale, props, bump mapping, etc. As such while it was easier to make a level it was in fact harder to make it look good, because you were so limited technically. I've seen crappy maps for HL2 that, with a half decent lighting setup and a couple of props could look a lot better than it should.

HL2 mapping is difficult, not because its limited like HL1, but because the boundaries are so hard to reach. While we have all the new technology, better engine, props, displacements, etc, the standard has been raised to the point that it takes a lot longer to achieve a map of high quality by todays standards.

Essentially it was, or is, hard to make a high quality map in either game, its just that the reason for the difficulty is different.

Hopefully that clarifies things :smile: .

(Then again, I generally found HL mapping easier, because I had gotten to the point that I could whip something up quickly that would look great. For example Paralaxion took less than a week to make, in fact the compile time took longer than the mapping time)

---

Ham and Jam Contributor
http://www.hamandjam.org

'Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!'

OK. You're all right. Now....who is in charge of setting up the competition? Lep? He hasn't been here in a month. ReNo? We have lots of ideas.....someone just needs to make it official!

WTF just happened? You both have valid points, but Orph, there was no reason to jump on him like that.

I don't think we're far enough into hl2 mapping to make an accurate judgement, because, people ignore things like Physics, no one has really made an MP map (I assume we're talking about MP) that utilizes physics as part of the game-play, along with horizontal and vertical layout. I think something like that will make it MUCH harder to make a playable map in hl2 rather than hl1. As for aesthetics ... well, does it really matter? The standards for an hl1 map changed so many times, so depending on when you made your map you could get away with more flat surfaces rather than later.

Even in an aesthetics argument, you have to realize, in HL2 you can't just make whatever you want out of brushes, while you could put a prop in, what if it doesn't exist and you have to make it? Wouldn't that now be part of the mapping process? I think something like that would make it much more difficult.

If you break it down to something as simple as "layout", then there's no difference, hl2 maps can be bigger ... thus potentially harder. I personally think that freedom to do whatever is more difficult to utilize than a strict set environment that is already well defined for you. You know what you can and can't do well. You'll know what will work where. So on and so forth. But it wasn't always like that, so. Blah.

I just don't understand the sudden burst of "your opinion is wrong" came from.

I also agree there should be a new mapping competition, I really liked Myrk's idea. Again, setting big ass limitations should force more entries. Most of the reason why people don't complete competitions here is because they ran out of ideas. Or didn't think a part though well enough ... maybe this eliminates that problem?

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Crono, you come in late again (through no fault of your own) and think you have the problem summarized as soon as you posted.

Dammit man, don't you ever learn. :razz:

Anyway, I may have failed to make my point as clearly as I wished, but with the portion Mr. Smith added, I think its as close to what I originally intended to say without rehashing it all over again.

Personally, I think you totally missed Mr. Smiths addition to the situation and automatically assumed.

Morph. I hear you and agree with your point. I can and do see it clearly. I fear that even though Smith helped me, you still cannot grasp my intent.

Lets just agree to disagree since only one of us seems able to see both ways.

Crono, have I mentioned that my name is available for use for your first born?

Yeah, I think Jon is many times more preferable to Adam. :wink:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

1st: My entire comment on props (and all that jazz) was in reply to what Smith said

2nd: I wouldn't name my child after myself

3rd: I don't like Jon ... especially spelled all funny like that. Nothing personal, just never fancied the name. Especially spelled like that ... you know ... all funny.

4th: How did I know you'd think that a time line existed on reading text?

There were some points that you were overlooking, that's all. And I don't think it was okay how you jumped all over Morphine.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't see your point or see "both ways". That's a bit of a short sighted comment, don't you think?

I didn't assume anything ... I read what everyone said, thought about it, and then made a reply ... am I not allowed to do that now? :razz:

I really don't get why you think I can't read what everyone has said up to this point on and not know what's going on ... are you conversing telepathically too or something? "Here comes the guy who didn't join the ESP conversation, he wont understand at all".

I may have failed to make my point as clearly as I wished

I see a pattern!

Mazemaster, why didn't you figure it out sooner!? You're supposed to be like the riddler or some s**t.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Orpheus said:
Morph. I hear you and agree with your point. I can and do see it clearly.

Thank you. I'm glad you can.

Orpheus said:
I fear that even though Smith helped me, you still cannot grasp my intent.
Lets just agree to disagree since only one of us seems able to see both ways.

What Agent Smith said makes perfect sense to me... and in fact I'm
inclined to agree with him now. We both had extreme postions (you
argued HL1 is harder to map for, I argued HL2 is harder to map for) and
Agent Smiths argument is they are both difficult to map for, for
different reasons. He made a good argument for the middle of the
road position and that's probably the most accurate position to
take. So -- while I still think that HL2 is harder to map for
overall, I concede there are good points to be made for the other camp.

As for me being unable to see both ways, you didn't give me a chance to
reply to Agent Smith before you took the highroad. :razz:
At least give me a chance to say I see your point before you claim to
be able to see mine and then quickly declare you're the only one in the
debate reasonable enough to see both sides. I see now
where you're coming from (if in fact Agent Smith articulated what you
were
trying to say all along).

Ho hum.. quod erat demonstrandum

for everyone...! wewt!

well done gents!!

Doc B... :dodgy:

Sadly Crono, there are a couple of things we have no control over in life.

1 is our parents and the other is they name they shackle us with.

Try living a life with a name like Jon Rickenbacker.

Everything humanly possible that is associated with toilets seems to be my legacy.

Everything remotely rhyming with Rickenbacker is my fate.

Anyway... You'd be overwhelmingly surprised what I can glean from your postings. The very fact that I abstain from commenting any more often than I do, shows a measure of tact and fondness I retain for you.

Trust me, you do not want to hear me just talk about Crono. :biggrin:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I have pondered this for over an hour now and I think I have finally come up with a way, to express my viewpoint on the subject in debate.

Now, discounting any attempt to prove myself right and anyone else wrong, cause thats not my goal. My only goal is to show how I came to believe HL1 is more difficult to succeed at than HL2. Not harder to map, harder to map successfully.

Of the maps I have made, released and unreleased, I can only count 2 possible successful maps, and more than likely, only one truly great map. I am many times harder on myself than anyone else is, and I am also much harder on others maps than the majority here. I am not trying to vie for the "Most intolerable" award. I am just picky.

Another strong indicator of "how" I became convinced is the fact that I have been a part of almost every single successful map ever released at Snarkpit. That could only mean that I am an insufferable boor who insinuates his presence in all of them, or it could mean that I am available for use. Since approximately 90% of all those maps were made with me a part of them, and that they asked me to assist should say that at some level, my comments were welcome and sought after.

Of the successful HL2 maps, I have been less useful because a portion of that time I was either unavailable, or on 56k and its so hard to do anything useful for anyone. I literally have to dedicate hours for any map.

Just the very idea of connecting to the web on 56k and using steam is a hazard unto itself.

Now, since Morph and I seem to be the most vocal members talking about this I'll only use us as examples. This will sorely limit my ability to show my views but I hope he doesn't mind my trying.

Lets assume that Morph releases an exceptional map right off the bat. This could very well mean that he is an exceptional mapper. This has happened enough to make it a possibility. It could also mean that making a successful map for HL2 is more likely because it contains elements that when used correctly almost guarantees a good looking map. It doesn't really mean it is a well made map because it has premade items, but it eliminates the necessity to worry about them so you can concentrate on other things in the map.

It could be said that arrogance is blind. That attempting to compare my maps to other examples of successfully made maps is, shall I say it? "WRONG"

I have no real way to convey myself because I cannot really use anyone as an example who isn't part of the discussion.

Yeah, I could use Duncan. He has made several good looking maps, but he took a while to get that way too so... Did it take a while because HL1 is hard to map for and do it well?

Anyway, perhaps this is all bulls**t. Perhaps it clarifies my position. Perhaps I should shut up but... Thats highly unlikely to happen any time soon.

Perhaps, you'll believe me when I say Mapping for half life 1 has a much smaller window of success than HL2 has and you will just believe.

/rambling

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

You make a good point about HL2 coming with a lot of great looking
prepackaged assets. Compared to what HL1 came with (just
textures) HL2 is leaps and bounds ahead.

It was something I hadn't really given much thought, but its a very valid point. :smile:

Its very un-nerving for a discussion to deflate so rapidly Morph. If its worth arguing about, don't abruptly stop. It leads me to believe that you were only arguing because you have the ability to do so, not because you genuinely believed your viewpoint was indeed worthy of debating.

Arguments hardly ever just happen. They are stoked and nurtured into life. It takes time to argue, it should also take time to cool down.

If you want my respect, do not ever concede. If you could care less about the respect, remember that others are reading this quietly. and.. they remember.

/2 cents.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

The graphics engine and whippy-doo-dah looks almost real environments do not make a map good. Sure it helps, but how immersive that map, and good knowledge of gameflow is what matters the most. A number of you have stated that you still play Doom - which looks like poo...but you still play it - think about why...

Bites tongue Orph is right :wink:

---

You Got To Get Through What You've Got To Go Through To Get What You Want But You Got To Know What You Want To Get Through What You Got To Go Through

I wonder if its possible to bookmark pages. :heee:

Sadly, in all the years I have been here, I'd now have only 3. (<---humor tag)

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
Its very un-nerving for a discussion to deflate so
rapidly Morph. If its worth arguing about, don't abruptly stop. It
leads me to believe that you were only arguing because you have the
ability to do so, not because you genuinely believed your viewpoint was
indeed worthy of debating.

Honestly, I genuinely believe my viewpoint, but I made all the points I was ever going to make for my
position. Once you've said what you've got to say there's not
much accomplished by simply rephrasing or repeating what's been said
before. Additionally, I felt like the whole debate was winding
down. After reading your last post I wasn't moved to reply with a
new argument.

Orpheus said:
Arguments hardly ever just happen. They are stoked and nurtured into
life. It takes time to argue, it should also take time to cool down.

My respectful post about you making a good point was the cool down
post. I felt like I had gotten pretty heated in my previous
posts, and I didn't want any hard feelings. It was my attempt at
a tactful extension of that olive branch you like to talk about.
I didn't think it would make you so angry for me to say you made a
valid point.

Orpheus said:
If you want my respect, do not ever concede. If you could care less
about the respect, remember that others are reading this quietly. and..
they remember.

/2 cents.

I find this really amusing. Do not ever concede? I
don't see our little online debates as chances for us to butt heads ad
nauseum. I may be an idealist, but I'd like to think that in any
debate/discussion I have there's the distinct possibility that I'll
change your point of view, and that maybe you'll change mine. I
don't go into a debate thinking, "I will not concede this, I will not
back down or change my mind regardless of what the other person
says." If that's the kind of attitude you want from me, we'll
just get into shouting matches everytime we find ourselves on opposite
sides of an issue.

When it comes to our HL1 / HL2 debate, good points were made for
both camps, including points I hadn't considered before I made my
arguments. I took a step back and rethought my position in light
of the new arguments (made by you and Agent Smith) and honestly I don't
feel the need to reject your points and go back to my original
statement. Here's where I stand right now: Mapping for HL1 is
difficult. Mapping for HL2 is difficult. They're difficult
for different reasons, and in the end its just personal opinion that
determines which difficulties are harder to overcome. I find HL2
more challenging to map for. For all the reasons I've stated in
my previous posts. If you think HL1 is more challenging to map
for, I no longer think you're crazy, my viewpoint has been altered.

I'd like to be a respected member of the site, and I was beginning
to hope I'd been here long enough that some would see me in that
light. But with all due respect Orpheus, I don't find stubborness
to be a quality that breeds respect, and if you decide you don't
respect me because that's how I feel about debates in general then
maybe that's your loss. :smile: I am sure there are members of the Pit who
can see where I'm coming from.

That being said... Adam Hawkins brought a new argument to the table that I feel the urge to respond to.

@Adam Hawkins

I was one of the people who mentioned they still play Doom. It's
a great game, because the gameplay is still satisfying. I
appreciate the visuals more because of a nostalgia factor. If I
were a youngster who never grew up playing Doom, and you told me to
play it after having played HL2 first... I don't think I'd be able to
go back and appreciate the game as much as I do now because the visuals
would seem archaic.

Also -- I don't see the connection between having Doom still be
enjoyable today and Orpheus being right. If you're talking about
gameplay being paramount, ReNo already made a good point, which I agree
with, about gameplay being "more timeless and transferrable."
Both old maps and new maps need to have great gameplay to
succeed. But now new maps also need a fantastic looking setting
to go with the good gameplay. Capturing that good look to go with
the good gameplay is one of the things that make HL2 challenging.
I still personally think it's harder to capture that good look with HL2
than with HL1.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Addicted to Morphine</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>You make a good point about HL2 coming with a lot of great looking prepackaged assets. Compared to what HL1 came with (just textures) HL2 is leaps and bounds ahead.

It was something I hadn't really given much thought, but its a very valid point. :smile:
</DIV></DIV>

The only thing is that the props and assets you're talking about, not the mention the textures, are all so proprietary to the single-player game that getting a good map done in anything other than the motif of the original game is very hard.

Also, you're right, Morph. I have some youngsters in my class who can't stand Quake3 because "the graphics are grainy and its old." so, yeah, younger ppl don't appreciate the good old games...

---

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

Addicted to Morphine said:
I'd like to be a respected member of the site, and I was beginning to hope I'd been here long enough that some would see me in that light. But with all due respect Orpheus, I don't find stubborness to be a quality that breeds respect, and if you decide you don't respect me because that's how I feel about debates in general then maybe that's your loss. :smile: I am sure there are members of the Pit who can see where I'm coming from.

There are almost as many kinds of respect as there are individuals giving, and receiving it.

My point wasn't to say that being a pig headed stubborn ass is a redeeming attribute. My point was that if you are certain in your view enough to argue it then by all means stick to your guns.

I may have, or may not have as much respect as I could have had, had I been a different person. What I do have is a history of unwavering dedication to my views. They are in many cases, views that are not really liked or agreed with, but the consistency of my views shows people that I do not bend at every breeze that comes along. Steadfast doesn't necessarily mean stubborn.

My point about you conceding was only meant that you should not back peddle just because you are tired of the debate. You can bow out and no one would hold it against you. But, it looks like you suddenly agreed and I still detect that you missed my point about the "Window of success"

Somehow, that one concept translates to YOU as difficulty. This is not really what I mean because success comes to people at different rates, BUT difficult remain constant. Imagine, HL1 mapping is truly the same for everyone. You use the same tools in every map. SO THE DIFFICULTY IS EQUAL. Now, I have seen people, who create a great map with their first release. I have seen people create great maps with their 10th try. The point is, they made a great map. The issue remains "WHAT MADE IT GREAT?"

It wasn't difficulty, because one person grasped it right off, and the other took 10 tries to get it correct.

What made it great was that each of them FINALLY met the criteria that it takes to achieve "GREATNESS"

That window, is smaller with HL1 because, you had more primitive items in which to create the greatness.

Now, does that make sense to you?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
I may have, or may not have as much respect as I
could have had, had I been a different person. What I do have is a
history of unwavering dedication to my views. They are in many cases,
views that are not really liked or agreed with, but the consistency of
my views shows people that I do not bend at every breeze that comes
along. Steadfast doesn't necessarily mean stubborn.

Being easily influenced and being seen as a malleable person is not
something I strive for. At the same time I like to keep my mind
open enough to be able to integrate new information and viewpoints and
then use them to reasses my own beliefs. It's a fine line between
showing backbone / being steady and being close-minded / stubborn, just
as there is a fine line between being weak willed and being
open-minded. It's hard balance to find, and I'm still learning
about life but I'd like to think I'm more open-minded than weak
willed. That's not to say I don't have strong unwavering
convinctions, I do, but the topic of our last debate wasn't one of them.

Orpheus said:
It wasn't difficulty, because one person grasped it right off, and the other took 10 tries to get it correct.

What made it great was that each of them FINALLY met the criteria that it takes to achieve "GREATNESS"

That window, is smaller with HL1 because, you had more primitive items in which to create the greatness.

Now, does that make sense to you?

Yes, the way you laid it out right there made much more sense to me than
the way you explained it previously. It's a good point, but at
the same time a few questions spring to mind regarding HL2:

By extension of your point: for HL2 we have more evolved items / tools
with which to create the greatness of which you speak. This in
your view, makes the window of success bigger, right?

But where do the ideas of broader boundaries and higher expectations for the finished product fit in?

I like to think that the higher expectations aren't negligable and in
fact they tighten the window of success despite the availability of
stronger tools.

To clarify, when I say "higher expectations" I mean maps for HL2 looks
so much better than maps for HL1, and custom content has to live up to
a higher visual standard.

Perhaps a group hug might be in order?

---

Ham and Jam Contributor
http://www.hamandjam.org

'Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!'

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Addicted to Morphine</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

Yes, the way you laid it out right there made much more sense to me than the way you explained it previously. It's a good point, but at the same time a few questions spring to mind regarding HL2:
By extension of your point: for HL2 we have more evolved items / tools with which to create the greatness of which you speak. This in your view, makes the window of success bigger, right?
But where do the ideas of broader boundaries and higher expectations for the finished product fit in?
I like to think that the higher expectations aren't negligable and in fact they tighten the window of success despite the availability of stronger tools.
To clarify, when I say "higher expectations" I mean maps for HL2 looks so much better than maps for HL1, and custom content has to live up to a higher visual standard.
</DIV></DIV>

All true. And not so.

Old days. It took hours/days/weeks to make basic terrain. Now you have displacements. Its easier now. Harder because you now have to make them prettier but easier because the computer generally makes them for you with a simple click here and there. Old days it was not as easy. you had to clip/vertex/clip/vertex and hope you landed on all the grids and it compile successfully.

Now thats a decent description of "Difficulty"

The window of success for that terrain is smaller because, you may fail to get the rocks to compile, and once you do, they turn out so poorly that no one likes the map as well as they could have. Rocks with displacements most likely, will turn out correct enough, that people will only give them a cursory glance. Rocks, even bad ones look so much better in HL2.

Items... a decent window is a model away now. It could have been a model in HL1 but the epolie limits would eventually come into play with to many. HL2 has a much higher tolerance for models. THE WINDOW OF SUCCESS IS BIGGER!

So, the basic similarities in the games of HL1 and HL2 are design. A poorly designed map will suck with each. So using design as an example of difficulty and success isn't really an option because you can conceivably make an HL1 map and an HL2 map identically the same using brushes.

If you had an identical map with each, then they would be... IDENTICAL.

does that help?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.