Llama-ness isnt just the people who play

Well I read the link and its obvious that they just don't play the game online. How can you judge a map or even make maps if you don't play the game online? Newbies

They're looking at a map as a piece of art, and not the playability of it.

Everyone agrees it's a simple map.
People who've played it enjoy it.

It does not suck, and I certainly wouldn't refuse to play it because it's simple.

Just because you can play with your z axis doesn't mean it'll make it a better game. The ultimate decision as to how good a map is belongs to the people who play it, or don't.

I haven't loaded up a map of UT and stared at it for it's beauty in a long time. I usually play them once they're loaded.

grrrrrrrr

I think those guys have their heads stuffed somewhere I think they're loosing site on what makes a good map: fun.

If a map isn't fun then it's a bad map imo. It doesn't have to look gret to be good. And for them to saying that it's a disgrace to the apping community is just plain out of touch. Amen DA, egos got hurt and they started bitching about it cos players like it more than their maps, it sucks

Here's my two pennies :

CTF-Thorns is just one of those maps that dont look hot, but is quite playable, basically because of it's simplicity. It is also a good map for people with not much hardware, as the single room in the map does not put much strain on the GFX card. It's just one of those suprise maps that get really popular even though there is hardly any work put into it (well, that might be true, maybe the author thought about the design of the level and deliberately made it simple, but I'm not sure). Plus the level doesn't excactly look ugly and is neat and tidy, which is another good point (many other single room type levels have dog-ugly textures and horrid lighting)

As for the peeps at Nali City, they need to chill a bit. The map got popular because of it's simple design and fast pace, not because it's a beautiful complex level with ultra-high poly counts and not so hot playability that probably took 6 months to create. And the remark by someone about it being 'a throwback to 8-10 years ago', thats just dumb. The only way a map could become a throwback to the past is if it used a graphics engine of the past. I don't think it looks like Wolfenstein or anything like that at all. Anyway, I'm beginning to drag on...

My point is, CTF-Thorns is seen as a fun map by a lot of people, hence the popularity, it's just that some people need to chill out a bit just because there map didn't become as popular.

That's just my opinion anyway

These guys are crying about 'lack of strategy' when that's actually the point of the map. Ever heard of 'tactics'? Thorns is a tactical map, not a strategic one. It was made to be played, not looked at. I wonder what these mappers would think if they knew what most of us ran our graphical settings at for playability's sake.

I honestly hope this spurs a wave of simple, tactical maps with similar playability. I can think of dozens of variations on this simple theme, but I have no skill in mapping (or the time for it.) I have a great respect for the folks with the creativity to create the maps we all know and love, and it seems like only a few have the combination of elitism and out-spokenness indicated by that thread. Perhaps the ones with this attitude have something to learn here.

I agree with you as well, I just don't see how its possible to not like Thorns

Though a simplistic map, it holds a world of fun online, especially with a good crowd.
People should simply try a map, before they judge it.

LOL!, Amen to that.

Excellent

Originally posted by DragonAsh
I will take a running start and lodge my foot so far up their a$$es that their breathe will smell like shoe polish

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see the voices of maturity have prevaled here.

Please do not mistake my comments for those of Nali City; I am but one person who frequents the forums and posts maps and I am not really a mapper nor am I one of their reviewers.

FYI: I do play online (http://ut.ngworldstats.com/fcgi-bin/Display?gt=UT&gm=ctf&uid=2510166&page=m&view=p) and I have played the map. I appreciate the debate but not the gross number of innacuracies and assumptions.

Well, let's say I were to review it for Mapped... what is the difference between bashing and critiquing?

I agree with Ned....Thors is a REALLY bad map. IF you thought this was fun, you must have liked 2BigBoxes, TempleofGayness, Britney...and he's also right about your guys's attitudes...wtf is up with that?? I thought you guys were actually kinda mature, but I guess this has proved me dead wrong.

cute....

Well, i could see why the l337 mappers would not consider this map less then crap. Its gonna be crap if you go in with the mind set that just cuz it maybe took 30min to make and is only a box. well your gonna not have fun with it at all!

If you notice, its mostly the Clan people that really like this map, you know why?
If you everplay on SwineOnline or XA servers, youll see the crap that goes on and understand why people are just tired the of portal camping, Deemer launching, Piston Jumping and spawn snipers.

Once you have to go thru all that, a map like this starts to be fun, only because its fast nonstop action, Teamwork based and really no where to hide or be lame.

Why is that so bad? oh god its simple so it must suck! pffft

Since this has pissed of all the Epic **** riders, i would like to see you quys make such a "Simple" map and see if its as fun.

Are you mappers really geting this? the PuF have spoken and from what i see, Thorns 0wns. suck it down!

I know, how mature huh, Shock?

Nig

I don't really have anything new to add to the conversation, but i'd just like to point out that DA's new siggy picture is really neat.

i haven't played the map but i've only heard good things about it from everyone i've spoken to. Sounds like the guys who pan it have just lost sight of whats fun.

PS that sig is sweet DA