PDA

View Full Version : Let it all out :- Remakes, n00bs, "elite" people.


Zlal
28th Jun 2003, 01:28 PM
I feel it's time for some nice, friendly disccusion.

Looking back over the last few months, I sit in horror at the amount of flaming. While Nalicty was always hot, it's become consistantly burning as of late.
It was predicted by many that this would happen, before the release of UT2003. many laughed, some were worried and some didn't care. What everyone knew is that it would bring flames, and lots of them.

All down to remakes, it seems. Deck, Tempest, Curse, not to mention others. I could likely find 100 of them, all with names like Dm-DECK16-KSV.V3 or CTF-Coret-CE2035-withtworedeemers

Now, I'm not putting them down.
Thats what this thread is for. Let's stop moaning and filling up comments sections, with confusing edits and respones.
let's bring this to the forums, where flames were disgned to reside.
Please, link to this thread when you are about to discuss something about remakes. best to get it over and done with soon, rather than let it sizzle over months with petty comments.

Bot_40
28th Jun 2003, 02:02 PM
Main thing that annoys me is when cannibas corpse starts slagging off the site. It's fair enough to disagree with a subjective review, but something like this is clear cut. The remakes are reviewed on what has been changed from the original. If there are no improvments, or the changes are worse than in the original, then the map scores 0. Simple as that. Nobody cares if the layout is leet, it was leet before, there is nothing new, therefore nothing to score positively. And this isn't just nalicity, the other major reviewage site, Unreal Playground follows the exact same policy on grading a map soley on the changes that are made to the original.
And he doesn't seem to realise that user comments are there to reflect the views of the people. Isn't it saying something when the majority of the user comments reflect the exact words of the review (and these people are also the ones that have been around in the community the longest and have a much greater impression of what makes a good map).

Bot_40
29th Jun 2003, 09:38 AM
http://nalicity.beyondunreal.com/map_hub.php?mid=6235

The Purple Bunny
29th Jun 2003, 12:25 PM
I don't have a problem with any porting a UT map into UT2K3, as long as if you're gonna show it off and expect people to play it as well, that you give them a reason to. This Cannabis Corpse guy has not done that with any of the maps he submitted. The people who downloaded them either hate them because he didn't credit the original author, or because the map is a really bad remake, with bad textures, and even worse, NO MUSIC.

He may have credited the author, but then he credits himself as a co-author, which he had absolutely NOTHING to do with building the map. You replaced the textures and lighting, does not make you the author in any shape or fashion. All you do is take what was built by someone else and replace stuff. Not authoring.

One of the dumbest comments I hear is "stfu at least someone is porting the maps be grateful". Um, no. Hell no. I don't feel the need to appreciate something that I, you, anyone could have done just as easily as he did. I could have opened up UED2, exported a map, opened UED3, imported it, and done the exact same thing as Cannabis did, but with probably a bit more effort to not make the map as ugly compared to the original.

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think you'll find many people to care about a remake if it's exactly the same as the original, because it's just as easier on they eyes, ears, and pretty much your PC, to load up UT and play the map there, because the remake has nothing more to offer.

If Cannabis, or anyone, is gonna remake a UT map, at least attempt to use what Unreal Ed 3 has to offer, and make it into a better map, not only in looks, but gameplay and sound. CliffyB's Ownage has a remake of Liandri that he says is great. Probably use it to get an idea of how to do a remake that people will actually be interested in.

Bot_40
29th Jun 2003, 03:14 PM
Ya, I have already said that I have no problem with remakes, but only if they at least try to improve on the original. Since 50% of the map (the gameplay) is going to be similar, if not exactly the same as the original, then it means the author, if they want to create a decent map, has to give 150% into the other aspects of the map to make up for it. Otherwise they can change the layout and try to make improvments.
What has actually happened is that CC & co. have not put 150% effort into making the map original, they have just ported the old map and not bothered trying to improve on it at all. Maybe with Tempest][-k3 he scaled it up so it adapts to UT2k3 gameplay, but since all it is is an adaption, then it doesn't actually improve it in any way, it just stops it from being underscaled and worse than the original. When you add the more ugly lighting and texturing, erm, how is it possible that this map can get more than a 0?

And you can moan and rant all you like about people wanting to play the classic maps in UT2k3, but I'm STILL waiting for a good reason why this justifies ripping the map and making no attempt at improving it whatsoever. In fact, I'm still waiting for a single reason at all, let alone a good one :con:

http://nalicity.beyondunreal.com/map_hub.php?mid=6212 <- ffs, look at this map, it's not perfect by any means. I wouldn't even go as far as to say that is is a good map, but it's a step in the right direction and it's a great relief to see that a mapper actually has the decency to spend some time and effort making a decent conversion. There are still many many things that could be improved in the map, but at least it shows that a decent conversion can be made...

DeRailer
29th Jun 2003, 11:33 PM
From a player perspective
I'm not against remakes, nor how they looks, I just don't play them. UT2k3 jumpscale is just way too ridiculous, and now it's possible to jump up by 192 units hieght with boostdodge, it creates plenty of unwanted shortcuts in some of the remakes. Not forgoting to mention now you can walldodge, you can gain a greater boost out of liftjumps. In Alpu2, there's some unwanted shortcuts that was never intended in the orginal, spoiling what used to be an effective layout.
What most of the mappers did, was simplily to scale rooms up, By doing that they occasionally made the map too open, slowing down it's overall gameplay, even slower than how it was in UT99. The dozen of remakes for Tempest shows that.
The ctf remakes seems ok, but dm formula changed a lot more than it should. I believe a different style of dm maps are needed.

LoserMan
30th Jun 2003, 04:53 AM
I've got no problems with quality remakes, in fact, I used tundra as the base for a 2k3 map. The emphasis here, though, is on the word "quality."

When I look at a remade map, I'm interested in how much care the remaker put into it. When I see a map like the Liandri remake listed on Cliffy's, I see a map that has had some real effort put into it. I see careful lighting, complete with coronas, I see UT's blocky BSP replaced with tasteful meshes, and I see a lot of added detail. These are the things that signal me that the person behind this was really interested in producing something that improves upon the original.

Now, after reading corpse's rants about how he had updated those maps, I decided to download one, and see if this was true. I admit to having the misfortune of playing his take on Tempest. What I saw was an atrocity. There were some alterations to the map geometry, mainly in the removal of a number of windows. Otherwise, all the BSP was there, scaled up perhaps, but not altered. There were some mesh light fixtures, which really neither added nor detracted from the map. However, the grotesque lighting being poured out by those fixtures nearly burnt my retinas. The textures revealed by that lighting were awful, shiny phobos walls with pulsing blue veins plastered on every ceiling, corners where the textures were too lazy to bother lining up. It was nauseating. I saw a map produced by a hack, somebody who really couldn't be bothered to improve upon the original.

That map was something I would never make, and if I had, would certainly not upload to a map site. Even if it had been uploaded in some freak accident, I certainly wouldn't take credit for it, and I would never dream of defending it. I'm not a great mapper, I've only released a few maps, and most of them aren't very good, but I know sh@t when I step in it.

As for these people whining about elitism...

Grow up. Seriously. In any activity, be it mapping, or sports, or designing digital logic, there are some people who know more, and some people who are "n00bs." Those people who know more, have a sort of responsibility to help the community surrounding the activity, by encouraging others to produce better work, helping others when possible, and telling others when they've screwed up. When the mappers around here, who have learned a lot about mapping, and produced fine work, tell somebody that what they've done is bad, it's not elitism, it's criticism. And despite what our screwed up society seems to believe, criticism is not a bad thing! Oft times it's the only way to get somebody to step back and examine what they are doing.

So, learn.

/me goes back to lightwave now.

Bot_40
30th Jun 2003, 08:08 AM
Damn, this thread was supposed to be full of flames by now, but everyone seems to agree with the same stuff! I guess it just proves the point that CC has absoloutly no clue what he's on about!

The Purple Bunny
30th Jun 2003, 12:17 PM
http://www.planetunreal.com/funreal/DM-Decks[FuT].asp

That page right there shows exactly how a remake is supposed to be done. This remake of Deck 16 uses static meshes, textures, and lighting that surpasses the original, and makes the map not only look like it was made for UT2K3, but more realistic. It's actually Deck 16 and Deck 17, both are designed exactly the same, and connected together with a series of hallways. Deck 16 has the slime, Deck 17 has the lava (a very nice static mesh number 16 and 17 are placed too. It's like this because this map is available in DOM, CTF, and BR versions, to make both sides (bases) equal. It even has a bonus of removing the pole where the sheild belt was and replacing it with a stariway to a platform holding the Super Shield, above a deep down pool of slime/lava. The map is scaled correctly and does not take away from the gameplay of the original, and in fact adds slightly more gameplay with the added dangers. The music is a remixed version of the original Deck16 track. This is one of, if not, the best remakes I've ever seen.

Homeslice
15th Jul 2003, 01:46 AM
I was really sick at how many people followed him, gave the maps good scores, and told people like us how we know NOTHING about maps. Really, that is just wrong. Cannabis should never have done this. Good thing he's out of our hair....

darth_weasel
15th Jul 2003, 04:35 PM
http://www.planetunreal.com/funreal/DM-Decks[FuT].asp


sorry but the lighting still looks like shít on that :/

Teddie
17th Jul 2003, 01:14 PM
sorry but the lighting still looks like shít on that :/

I agree. Those decks maps were some of the first maps I did.

I used a lot of large radius "white" light that just blasted the place to bits. Not good. Killed the ambience/atmosphere of the environment.

The Decks maps was a good learning experience for me, but I cringe when my wife votes to play that map on our home LAN. Honestly, I don't like it. I'm glad some people do, but there are many things wrong with it.

Twrecks
17th Jul 2003, 01:36 PM
Teddie, Welcome to NC. Please upload your maps on our FTP. (or maybe you have?)

Teddie
17th Jul 2003, 01:42 PM
Twrecks, hey bro.

I've uploaded a couple of them a while back.

I tried the other night to log on to submit my other maps, but I'm getting a login error that says my name "Teddie" is an invalid user. Although I have a couple of my maps here using that account.

I sent you an email about it the other night. Let me know if you get it.

BTW, thanks for the welcomes. I think that was my first post up there ;)

Homeslice
4th Aug 2003, 02:11 AM
How about the remake of Viridan Dreams by Bonehed316 (the remake author, that is)? There's a remake worthy of your time. Depends on if you liked Viridian Dreams for UT or not.

Zlal
7th Aug 2003, 06:35 AM
How about the remake of Viridan Dreams by Bonehed316 (the remake author, that is)? There's a remake worthy of your time. Depends on if you liked Viridian Dreams for UT or not.

That isn't a direct port though, is it? :)