PDA

View Full Version : Make Something Unreal Phase 1 How it should have been.



Skydragon22
11-25-2008, 05:09 PM
The winners of phase 1, of the make something unreal contest have been announced for quite a while now. So I'm sure that everyone has had ample time to try out the maps, mods, and gametypes. In general I feel Epic got the winners correct in each category.

But I was wondering what other people think. Does anyone here think that Epic got it wrong, perhaps there is a mutator that is far better than the one that came in first. Or maybe you think that a vctf finalist. should have placed.

So if you were in charge, are their any changes you would have made?

by the way I'm not trying to say that Epic was wrong, but I was wondering about the opinions of others.

Also if you did submit in the MSUC, out of common courtesy, don't argue that your entry should have been better.

and again, I don't mean this thread as an insult to anyone who judges or who entered in the contest, I just want to see what others think.

Charybdis
11-25-2008, 09:42 PM
It's very difficult to judge something like this contest. So far I think Epic as done a fine job judging, although as always not everyone's opinions are similar. I'm just glad their willing to have a contest like this a support the mod making community with thousands of dollars in prizes.

Thrallala
11-26-2008, 01:13 PM
There are a few maps I would have ranked differently, but bringing it up here might offend those who made the maps so I'd rather not tell. I do agree with most of the judging though!

Azilla
11-29-2008, 12:23 PM
Epic hasn't judged anything, Judges were appointed by nvidia, Epic probably hasn't looked at many of the entries. Why would Intel appoint epic's staff as judges? They are sponsoring this competition and would want to be sure that their investment would have a successful turnout. Therefore only maps that look good are being picked. You can't capture gameplay in a screenshot and good gamplay doesn't advertise Intel's Ati Video cards and core duos. So if you create the map that is the most fun, but you only use bsp in an attempt to recapture the essence of Ut 99, don't expect to win, this is a corporation's competition.

ZixXer
11-29-2008, 01:29 PM
Epic hasn't judged anything, Judges were appointed by nvidia, Epic probably hasn't looked at many of the entries. Why would Intel appoint epic's staff as judges? They are sponsoring this competition and would want to be sure that their investment would have a successful turnout. Therefore only maps that look good are being picked. You can't capture gameplay in a screenshot and good gamplay doesn't advertise Intel's Ati Video cards and core duos. So if you create the map that is the most fun, but you only use bsp in an attempt to recapture the essence of Ut 99, don't expect to win, this is a corporation's competition.

I think that good looking maps should win!
There is alot of crappy looking maps out there. And if you can make a map that looks great and feels great it is why better then a map that only feels good but is as ugly as hell.

If I want I can make a map in a day with good game play but with terible grafix.
But if I want to make a great looking map and with good gameplay it takes me around 3 weeks to make a map like that.

So I think it is only fair that the good looking map wins, 1. it looks beter 2. a hole lot of more time was put in making the map. And 3. why would you play a ugly map with good gameplay if you can play a great looking map with good gameplay???

Only thing I can think of is that you have a pc with minium specs so that you can still play it.

Azilla
11-29-2008, 02:55 PM
No. What I am saying is that there are entries that look good and have awful or worse, or okay gameplay then there less eyecandy counterparts don't deserve first place. Phase 1 Warfare was a heap of dissappointments in terms of how they graded them. The best looking maps with alright gameplay didn't even win. Molten Core v1 had awful post processing to the point were i couldn't even tell where i was and it had awful collision everywhere. I think he fixed some of this, but it was an immature release that somehow beat out the very polished maps like Infection Forest and Imperialism. I would choose a okay looking map, never said ugly, over a graphic whore map anyday as long as it's gameplay was better. I play maps for the fun of playing not to look around at disstractions, though they are nice too ;) . I think Intel's judges need to stay by there word and grade things farely instead of looking for poster children for their technology, but thats all but possible:D. Oh well!

Distant Land
12-09-2008, 10:15 PM
I'd change priorities and feedback. In all cases how the map plays should be the majority of how it's judged, with visuals a decent ways behind. There were so many maps I played in P1 that looked good but played so badly I couldn't even finish a match, and others that won that were just so awkward.

I'd also really like to see feedback from the judges on why they feel each map deserved its place. The money is nice, but knowing why you won is a good reward too...maybe review all the maps, but small blurbs for maps that aren't finalists

Azilla
12-11-2008, 07:54 PM
Yeah those judges better give us some words on why a map should be one of their advertisements.