Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rather Quality than Quantity Maps

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Rather Quality than Quantity Maps

    He`s a try to make a notice to Epic...

    Steve Polge:
    We currently have well over 40 maps in development. Some of those may be cut, but you should expect UT 2007 to ship with a comparable number of maps to past UT releases (UT2004, which had two games worth of maps excepted).
    UT200X had a BIG number of maps (which on its own is great).
    But more than 3/4 are **** when it comes to gameplay.
    You can clearly see this at online matches, they`re not played.

    What I`m asking; please focus more on quality than quantity.
    Less maps, but better maps.

    #2
    For myself, I can only speak for TDM and DM-1on1. There are only three stockmaps (Rankin, Roughinery, Ironic) used in duel competition. And only five suitable for TDM (Antalus, Rankin, Corrugation, Osiris, Goliath).

    Comment


      #3
      I heard somewhere that they were building maps strategically before adding all the meshes and pretty stuff, so I'm hopeful that's what they're doing.

      Comment


        #4
        Well there are bound to be some bad maps. I'm not trying to insult epic or anything they are great. But nobody can make 40 great maps....nobody, there are always gonna be favorites thats how games are.

        Comment


          #5
          What's better, 10 great maps and 30 not so good maps.. or just 10 great maps...

          Comment


            #6
            What's better is 30 great maps. Fast and steady beats slow and steady, etc.

            Comment


              #7
              You always have your winners, and your losers. It'd be better for them to bring all material to the table (and in turn be able to expand the abilities of the game as far a quantities of meshes and textures and concepts/settings) instead of cut things they think might not work, but in the end will.

              You could have 30 mediocre maps and 10 awesome maps, but if you tried cutting down to focusing mainly on those few maps while ignoring all the rest, you'd never know what you would be losing out on.

              Comment


                #8
                Torlan was considered teh pwnage and Dawn a mediocre map when UT2004 came out. Ever so slowly, the community at large began to realize that maybe connecting only one node to the core on medium to large maps wasn't such a great idea after all.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Xyx
                  Torlan was considered teh pwnage and Dawn a mediocre map when UT2004 came out.
                  Actually the complaints about Torlan and it's imbalance started BEFORE the full game was even out, and the problems were stated right at the ataricommunity forums... ...we were hoping for the map being fixed for the retail...

                  ...it might be true that a lot of people only learn about gameplay months after they played a map for 178234 hours, but a lot of them learn it quite fast.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by happycat
                    You could have 30 mediocre maps and 10 awesome maps, but if you tried cutting down to focusing mainly on those few maps while ignoring all the rest, you'd never know what you would be losing out on.
                    True, but with maps like Trainingday, Serpentine, Insidious, Leviathan or Gael, you can tell beforehand they're not going to work. Any DM map that's basically one room, one hallway, one circle or any other layout where you can see more than half of the map from a single point is obviously not going to get played in the end.

                    There are other examples of extremely poor mapdesign in UT2004; take IronDeity for example. Basically, you have the top area with only two (one of which is very easily defendable) ways in, and it has the LG, the shockrifle, the doubledamage, the 100a, plenty of health AND the redeemer/rocketlauncher. Essentially a waste of manhours, that map. It's going to be frustrating to play in FFA, and it won't be played at all competetively. A bit of common sense and (more relevant to the topic at hand) polishing could've saved that map IMO.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Agrred that it need to be in quality and not quantity maps, but this is only my personnel opinion, that one of the fun things with UT have been to fight in cool different sci fi areans, and i love just to join a deathmatch server, which basicly goes trugh the entire map selection for UT 2004, i cant stand a map like rankin, its properly good for competition, but its boring as hell, and the fun factor comes first when i play games, deck 17 get used a lot to, its okay, but gets very boring to when its played that much. Phobos is one of my favorits, and it dosnt get played that much, just love to get trown trough the air like that with space in the background and the great UT gameplay, now thats entertainment

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Boksha
                        True, but with maps like Trainingday, Serpentine, Insidious, Leviathan or Gael, you can tell beforehand they're not going to work.
                        Gael is pretty popular for a map that "is not going to work". I also recall DM-Liandri basically being a "donut map". Even Deck is not so different... just one big room and a hallway around it. Or look at Face. These maps have pretty simple layout, n00bs don't get lost, they still work.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Gael is only popular on thoose "haha... fun .. spamfest.. kiddle-di-diddle" servers.
                          thoose that require you to download 20 sound mutator packages before they let you join.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Not in UT99? DM-Pyramid and DM-Fetid for a start...

                            I'd be happy if I could play on a server with a the standard maplist on rotate and never have to go "ah s***, not his one...", which is something I end up doing all the time in UT2004.

                            Standard size maps (and a few slightly smaller), gameplay a prime concern and a distinct lack of gimmick maps would go down a treat in my opinion.

                            Gimmick maps are especially annoying. They might be fun for five minutes, but that's it. They're never played again, and all they do is make it harder to run standard maplists on servers without them being derailer by garbage (which applied to UT99 and UT200x by the way).

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Xyx
                              Gael is pretty popular for a map that "is not going to work". I also recall DM-Liandri basically being a "donut map". Even Deck is not so different... just one big room and a hallway around it. Or look at Face. These maps have pretty simple layout, n00bs don't get lost, they still work.
                              Gael is popular because it is silly. You do not need more than one silly map IMO.
                              I shouldn't have to explain why DM-Liandri and Deck are not bad maps while Gael and Trainingday are.
                              Face is a CTF map so slightly different rules apply but again, we do not need two Facing Worlds maps.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X