View Full Version : DM-Hope

Rabid Wolf
3rd Mar 2002, 05:23 AM
see the pirate review right here (http://atarist.bravepages.com/utreviews/dm-hope/review.htm)

3rd Mar 2002, 11:25 AM
How is possible for a map to get a 7 for gameplay if it hits 450 polys?

I didn't like this particular review's scoring at all. I give it a 5.5

3rd Mar 2002, 12:37 PM
Why the surprise at the score? After reading a few reviews here it's obvious the more eye candy and the higher the poly count, the higher the score....

In spite of what the schema says, things like playability, flow, bot pathing and item placement mean very little, all that really matters is if the reviewer thinks it looks good. Looks (esthetics) are supposed to be 30% and gameplay 70% of the final score, yet maps that have no gameplay to speak of but are pretty tend to get high scores and maps that play great but only look ok generally score a lot lower.

Rabid Wolf
3rd Mar 2002, 02:09 PM
the 450 is the absolute peak. you only get it if you come through one particular archway, and run down a particular straight line to a particular spot at the edge of a particular ledge, then look down. mostly it was definately playable polycount, which is why it got a 7.

3rd Mar 2002, 11:19 PM
Ya, I looked at the map since then and I agree it's quite playable. 7 is bang on the money I think.

4th Mar 2002, 11:27 AM
50 % grapichs
50 % gameplay

if you dont ewant grapichs go play dukenukem or doom, the hardware gets stronger cause we can have more grapichs, and then people complain about the fact that they have too much grapichs ....

score of the map is not bad, maybe a bit lower but its ok :)
and no probs for 450 imo, k its slow, but too hell with that :)

5th Mar 2002, 01:56 AM
Here's a direct quote from the review schema.

"Now, we've heard it mentioned time and time again that gameplay - speed, bots, etc. - is make or break for a level's quality, so we weighted the gameplay category as 70% of the final score. Therefore, Environment received a weight of 30%."

5th Mar 2002, 11:38 AM
yes well thats ghey then

7th Mar 2002, 01:55 AM
Nice Review RB.
You take alot better screenshots than I do :p

Lruce Bee
7th Mar 2002, 01:25 PM
Well - this debate rages on

In my opinion - the map has to look the absolute dogs b*llocks before I go anywhere near it - game play can take care of itself if the map shines in the architecture/lighting department - You're not gonna get many mappers who can create a visually stunning map without thinking about the basic fundementals of map making - like flow etc - there are going to be exceptions - but not many

Seriously - you could have 4 boxes linked together with corridors and have a good fragfest but who the f*ck wants to play in that kind of environment? - C'mon - let's stop wallowing in yesteryear and live in the now - 450 polys is no problem - if it is - get a better PC and quite your whinning


Rabid Wolf
7th Mar 2002, 01:45 PM
Seriously - you could have 4 boxes linked together with corridors and have a good fragfest but who the f*ck wants to play in that kind of environment?
80+% of online CTF-ers and 50+% of online DM-ers it seems.

7th Mar 2002, 01:54 PM
erm, yah, but 80 % of those ghey players that think they know ut suck big time and know **** of mapping and stuff, and 90 % of the serveradmins too, you really cant look at what they want, i substracted a cube once, and added 2 playersstarts, a shockrifle, and a rocketluancher in it, and putted it online at the biggest belgium UT community forum, their reaction :''****ing leet, this ownz'', and they still play it....

so now we should all start to make 1 cube maps cause people want that ...:rolleyes:

Rabid Wolf
7th Mar 2002, 02:25 PM
but are you people mapping for players, or mapping for mapping peer?
this question arises out of mere curiosity, not the wish to be provocative.

7th Mar 2002, 02:32 PM
we map for ourself and the community, but i dont see some retards idiots who wants ghey cubes as part of that community cause they are too stupid theirself to understeand what a good map is

Lruce Bee
7th Mar 2002, 03:32 PM
Look - we seriously have to get away from this "you gotta cater for the on-line audience bull****" - F*uck em - I build levels exclusively for home bot play - you know the average guy who likes to kick arse for 10-20 minutes at a time - make a sarnie and then watch a bit of telly - then the environment hits them right between the eyes - they look around the arena and think "F*ucking Hell - look at this place - then they start to cap some bot - and get involved in the fighting - but the visuals are always gonna pull them in - anyone who says different is a lying bast*rd - period

Sure - you're gonna have your mappers who count every f*ucking node/poly/occlusion time and all that **** - but then it becomes a war of technicalities instead of creativity - and then the whole thing becomes somewhat contrived

Build a level that's original - looks f*cking amazing and gives me a thrill for 15 minutes plus and you have my vote but a box that's ultra-fast for online play - errrrrr.....no


8th Mar 2002, 10:30 AM
I have a high-end PC. I can play 1024*768*32 with high detail in normal maps, but in maps with more than 300 polys and more than 2 people in view i have to turn down my resolution or the framerate will drop below 40. Since the high-poly maps are few, i don't run UT in a lower res, and also don't bother playing them.
A playable 400-poly UT-map doesn't exist on today's computers.

Lruce Bee
8th Mar 2002, 12:07 PM
Off course they exist - most of my maps have some scenes that exceed 400 and it doesn't affect performance too much - now if you have a map that hits those kind of polys in view all the time then yeah - it's gonna suck - but I wouldn't be too concerned if one or two views hit 400-450= polys for a short while - I think it's a bit of a misconception that you should never build areas that hold 300/400 or even 500 polys in view so long as it isn't in a wide open courtyard etc - you gotta use your common sense really - so I don't concern myself with this issue too much


8th Mar 2002, 01:11 PM
Actually, a map with the same high polycount all over is usually better. It shows you really make use of the polys, instead of just having a badly planned layout(that is not counting maps with high polycounts only in certain angles you never look).
DM-Brunel is NOT playable with my settings. As i tried to say in the above post, not many bother to turn down their res just to be able to play one or two maps.

8th Mar 2002, 01:28 PM
i find 100-200 poly maps dead ugly now, im allready used to high poly stuff, so we should make high poly stuff imo, but above 400 really starts to be high indeed, pc's cant folow it :\

8th Mar 2002, 03:44 PM
I totally agree with fragswill. Sure ppl online are morons for looks, but they do make up the majority of frequent players, I'd bet. To make me sound young, my father plays UT and has for a full year now, any type of gameplay, and some TacOps because the guns are cool. He played Brunel and thought it was incredible. I pointed out all the details and how you did them, and he was quite impressed. He's played online all of a few times, and heck he's 47 so who'd expect him to? I on the other hand played the map a few times and those few times were with less than 2 bots so that I could look at it. Making something phenomenal is great, but I also like to play, so make something in between and I'm happy. Sure 150 polys doesn't look so hot anymore, but the engine was made for it, and that hasn't changed.
You can map for CliffyB, but no one plays anything that 0wns his white ass.

Lruce Bee
8th Mar 2002, 06:20 PM
Well the engine hasn't changed - but PC specs have - you gotta push the envelope to the absolute maximum nowadays - even at the expense of gameplay in some instances - otherwise you will be stuck in a loop and never move forward - everyone will be too scared to go those extra polys in the name of gameplay and that is absolute bullsh*t


8th Mar 2002, 06:24 PM
Stretching the engine a little is fine. But you can't give a 450 poly count the OK. If you want to make nicer maps then wait for the next engine. Maps have of course moved forward, mostly due to an increase in photo-realistic texture quality, better mappers, and an increase in poly counts but many ppl take the poly count too far IMO. I think 300 pushes the engine too far.

8th Mar 2002, 07:27 PM
you cant map cubes forever, 400-500 polys is alot, but i prefer a map that is pretty and plays well (purely on gameplay, not the slowness of the pc) then a fast running but dead ugly cube

8th Mar 2002, 07:44 PM
i have only contempt for people who are afraid of trying to push the engine and decide to "wait for u2 instead".

lame mother****ers. all of them. DAMN YOU ALL! GRRRRRRRRRRR.

8th Mar 2002, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by mister_cope
i have only contempt for people who are afraid of trying to push the engine and decide to "wait for u2 instead".

lame mother****ers. all of them. DAMN YOU ALL! GRRRRRRRRRRR.

Why not just **** UT and start making **** in Max now? Then when U2 comes out you is all set?

Pushing then engine is fine, but it doesn't make the level very playable, and it will never be successful online.

9th Mar 2002, 02:49 AM
frags, you should know by now that common sense has no place in these discussions.

p.s. Ur 'gh3y'

p.p.s 400 polys of davidmish 'inspired' leetness is not really that visually impressive.

p.p.ps ur still 'gh3y'

9th Mar 2002, 05:49 AM


ur ur ur ur ur

9th Mar 2002, 06:07 AM
ur cant handle the truth :x

9th Mar 2002, 09:03 AM

max payne sux too btw

9th Mar 2002, 09:39 AM
so does stubbing your toe on a doorframe when you get up for a piss in the night & are too lazy to turn the bathroom light on

9th Mar 2002, 05:08 PM
over 200 polys is way too much for the unreal engine builds >500

you dont play games.............you live with them

7th Apr 2004, 01:04 PM
I say: welcome to all those nicely made 400+ polys maps and **** all this online immature playing crap!

Kicking a$$ is not my cup of tea anyway...i leave that for others. ;)

19th Apr 2004, 07:14 AM
way to give life to a 2 year old thread!

12th Jul 2008, 03:11 AM
OMG 400 polys!

13th Jul 2008, 06:40 PM
lol this thread is like going back in time

23rd Jul 2008, 12:27 PM
zomg, 400 pollys are killing my pc :(

26th Jul 2008, 04:10 PM

I miss Nalicity. :(

8th Aug 2008, 02:27 PM
Lol, funny bump. Hourences sounds much more respectable these days :)

9th Aug 2008, 06:04 AM
I miss the cube map.

16th Apr 2009, 08:26 PM
Just tried this map, crashed my game. Dude wtf is up with the massive amount of polys???!!!

30th Jul 2009, 09:46 PM
lol, that was a leet Fawn map, right? If I remember it was similar to Turbine in color scheme/textures, and was quite fun, although Fawn had a few maps that were low poly so maybe I'm thinking of something else, if Hope was even his.