Last map you played/Map Reviews

[Nancsi]

Big thanks DT. I think these kind of puzzles can ruin maps entirely. Shame, because I like the level's construction. It's somewhat of a mixture of Bobsp and original space levels. Other things I hated are the sentry drones respawning into your faces in one corridor.

EDIT: I also don't understand how those yellow switches work... I managed to open that metal door, but there is no logic behind it.

[Dan G]

Big thanks DT. I think these kind of puzzles can ruin maps entirely. Shame, because I like the level's construction.

Yes, and sadly it is very common.  Good looking maps are often the worst offenders.  Such a waste.

The review at DNR does admit that the blue keycard is "well hidden", but gives the map a score of 96 anyway.   In Mikko's review, in which he gave the map a 94, he says the puzzles are "damned well made", which is false.  In fairness, though, it is one of his older reviews.

[Nancsi]

Big thanks DT. I think these kind of puzzles can ruin maps entirely. Shame, because I like the level's construction.

Yes, and sadly it is very common.  Good looking maps are often the worst offenders.  Such a waste.

The review at DNR does admit that the blue keycard is "well hidden", but gives the map a score of 96 anyway.   In Mikko's review, in which he gave the map a 94, he says the puzzles are "damned well made", which is false.  In fairness, though, it is one of his older reviews.

Yeah, Mikko's "review" was hilarious, like most of his older ones. :p

Anyway, do you know what is the combination for those yellow gears? I haven't figured it out yet.

[Dan G]

Big thanks DT. I think these kind of puzzles can ruin maps entirely. Shame, because I like the level's construction.

Yes, and sadly it is very common.  Good looking maps are often the worst offenders.  Such a waste.

The review at DNR does admit that the blue keycard is "well hidden", but gives the map a score of 96 anyway.   In Mikko's review, in which he gave the map a 94, he says the puzzles are "damned well made", which is false.  In fairness, though, it is one of his older reviews.

Yeah, Mikko's "review" was hilarious, like most of his older ones. :p

Anyway, do you know what is the combination for those yellow gears? I haven't figured it out yet.

I thought you were supposed to use all of them, I don't remember there being a combination.

[Nancsi]

I don't think it works that way, but the ending was quite a big disappointment (boss1) so it may not deserve the attention. Despite the obvious flaws, I like the leveldesign, possibly the best ever released by a girl, lol.

Anyway, I have played my old favourite level "Cosik" again, still quite an unknown gem. Although the rather mediocre texturing lowers the value a bit there are many great mechanical puzzles in this level I like, also the shading is great. The pipebomb puzzle is still one of my favourites, it's really fun, also that elevator/shuffle thing is also great with that flickering sign.

[Nancsi]

Played Descent into Hades... leveldesign for the most part were great, but... where were the enemies? Only 32 in a 9 minute map? Really? I spent half of the level just walking. I also think that Merlijn played this level, because I see some inspirations in the Red series (tldr storyline, and helicopter scene).

[Merlijn]

Yeah that's one of my favorite golden oldies! Lay-out and sense of location is so well executed, it feels like a real base rather then a random collection of hallways and storage rooms. This is so important, this was the first map that made me realize that maps just get a lot more enjoyable when the locations are convincing. In that sense the whole 'who cares about design, gameplay is more important' argument people bring up sometimes is fucking bullshit. Without convincing design, the whole map falls flat.

Sorry, I'm rambling a bit now. 

BTW the gameplay is just fine. Very enjoyable level without overdoing it (one miniboss battle at the end IIRC).

tldr storyline

sigh..

[Dan G]

There are people who say that design isn't important to a map?  I don't recall anyone saying that.

[Mikko_Sandt]

There are people who make it seem as if there is a tradeoff between design and gameplay. Usually these people can't build pretty maps so they make up these things to compensate for their own inadequacies.

[shawneth]

It was almost a year ago when I was like that, but I still believe that gameplay is pretty important, it wouldn't be a game without the action right?

[MetHy]

Yeah, but let's not forget people who can make pretty maps but who are not good at making good gameplay.

To me, a pretty map doesn't always have a good "design", because inside what quallifies as "design" there are two categories of things: the layout of the map, and everything else (detailing, shading, texturing, etc).
A big problem in communities of amateur map making like ours (the problem seems to be the same in games like Quake and Doom) is that many mappers never really thing of building a map layout which will make good gameplay: they build good looking rooms, with nice texturing, nice details and nice shading, but don't think of the gameplay when doing that and in the end we end up with stuffs such as too cramped rooms, a linear succession of rooms and corridors, or simply a layout and progression which is boring and in which you can't have interesting enemy placements and therefore good fights (and that's not even talking about mappers who would make terrible enemy placement in any case).

Another problem linked to that is that reviews focus way too heavily on details/shading/texturing, and forget about the rest (or at least make it be a lot less important). I'm gonna take an extreme example: Bobsp1. If our rating system used a mark out of 5, it would probably have between 4/5 and 5/5 (especially at the time it was released) because of how good looking and "revolutionary" it was. For me, Bobsp1 worths 1/5 at best for the simple reason that it's a 2minute map with a completely NON EXISTENT gameplay outside of bringing a card to a place and perhaps pressing a couple of buttons.
Of course that's an extreme example but it demonstrates best the problem I was talking about.

[Mikko_Sandt]

The thing is that great visuals can make you forgive shortcomings in the gameplay department but great gameplay cannot save a map with crappy design.

[Gambini]

The thing is that great visuals can make you forgive shortcomings in the gameplay department but great gameplay cannot save a map with crappy design.

And nobody could say it better 

[Dan G]

A pretty map with shitty gameplay is like a pretty woman with a shitty personality.  Good to look at, but not much fun in the long run.

Sure, we will "forgive" those flaws the first time we play the map, because it looks good.  But the maps we come back to again and again don't have serious gameplay flaws.

[MikeNorvak]

A pretty map with shitty gameplay is like a pretty woman with a shitty personality.  Good to look at, but not much fun in the long run.

Sure, we will "forgive" those flaws the first time we play the map, because it looks good.  But the maps we come back to again and again don't have serious gameplay flaws.

That´s true.....

damn fucki_n useless posts of mine