How about a 2006 Mapping Competition???

You didn't have to go into such an in depth explanation of why the
tools are easier and more powerful nowadays... I already agreed that
was a good point, and I can clearly see how the less powerful tools in HL1 shrinks the window of success.

Still -- the powerful tools raise the expectations for each map in
HL2. As you see it, how do these raised expectations effect the
window of success?

I would say, again, that the higher expectations shrink the window of success for HL2 maps. Would you agree?

Agent Smith said:
Perhaps a group hug might be in order?

I'm remarkable calm already but let's hug it out anyway.

Edit: Ah shoot no group hug smiley... this will have to do: :beerchug:

Addicted to Morphine said:
I would say, again, that the higher expectations shrink the window of success for HL2 maps. Would you agree?

Sadly I cannot. Because the expectation equation is flawed.

Killboxes are still as much, if not more popular.

Before you comment, I know what you are trying to say and I agree. The expectations are higher because the engine can deliver more. The problem remains however that the vast majority of the VOCAL public isn't concerned any more now, then they were in HL1.

So, using expectation as a defining parameter for "Window of success" is inaccurate to say the least.

The HL2 engine is capable of far more than anything we have seen to date so I expect, much more soon. It took years to reach the limits of the simple HL1 engine. I saw surprises with Gollums release. Years after HL1 should have run its course.

HL2 has resources yet untapped.

I think "expectations" is a bit premature to use in any definitive manner.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I think we can use it as a term as long as we restrict ourselves to the
high quality maps that would be well received here and at places like
mapcore.

Killboxes are a constant between HL1 and HL2 and can be completely
ignored for the purpose of this discussion, at least in my opinion.

So barring killboxes from our debate, how do you think the higher
potential quality of maps in HL2 effects the window of success?

But you already said that in your definition of "window of success", that people with a taste for killboxes play no part in the equation. If that is the case, surely their opinion should hold no weight in terms of raised expectations?

---

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

ReNo said:
But you already said that in your definition of "window of success", that people with a taste for killboxes play no part in the equation. If that is the case, surely their opinion should hold no weight in terms of raised expectations?

Duncan.. Who are you talking to?

The topic stalled and it seems to hinge with your reply.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

out of curiosity... are you mapping for HL2 (with the exception of your exploratory work in castle_orpheus etc) ? if not, why not ?

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

Orph, I was replying to you. I was referring to you saying that raised expectations are irrelevant because people still play killboxes (thus, expectations haven't really been raised), but earlier you said their opinions play no part in the definition of "success" because they are stupid. If their opinions play no part in the equation, then surely the expectations HAVE risen, because the people who aren't satisfied by killboxes DO expect more.

---

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

Blister, no. I have no real time. I have 56k and would never be able to even playtest one and.. I fear a steam update on dialup.

Duncan.. As we both know, I am one of the minority who think killbox makers and players are stupid. I have been told multiple times how... WRONG I am for such a view but I still see it thus.

That said, I am not stupid enough to not acknowledge gross numbers and as such, the dummies playing those stupid things still out number legitimate maps.

Anyway, the topic has seesawed so much now that I am unsure whats been said, and whats yet to be said. In other words, I admit I am confused at this point which way to reply.

In the end, I have said so many times now my fingers hurt typing it. HL2 is harder to map for, but the tools to do it with are more advanced so making maps is truly no more difficult that it was for HL1. The ability to create a map for HL1 is more difficult to succeed at because the ability to produce even normal things is/was harder with the limits of the engine.

How many times have you either:

1) scrapped a map because you couldn't fall within the R_Speed limit?
2) had to dummy one down to a point to where it didn't resemble what you had designed in your head?

You reached the limits so fast, that the maps often failed due to them. With HL2, I have yet to see any map exceed the engines limits. THAT doesn't mean there aren't any, but I have yet to see one.

Anyway, success, and difficulty may be one and the same to some, but the paths to each are never similar.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.