The idea that there is a set mapping "perfection" (eg. Soma maps) is part of what holds the community back. A lot of players and frequenters on mapping sites will bag a map without encouragement or detailed thought on the more positive aspects. I'm not saying a reviewer shouldn't point out what they see as flaws, but it's crucial they remember most mappers do so as a hobby.
It's one thing to point out where people's work can be improved, quite another to bag it.
At the end of the day if people act like spoiled children and constantly demand mappers to adapt to their own idea of "perfection" but can't adapt playing styles for a particular arena the community will fail to reach it's potential. If we realise the work every map has put into it rather than immediately expecting retail quality, it'd be easier for new mappers to gain a foothold and develop their own gameplay styles.
eg. Mellsoft maps suffer from amateur build quality therefore a miniature battle starts every time he posts a new map. Some protest that they tried to help him "become a better mapper" by conforming to set gameplay styles despite the fact he states prettymuch every time he is trying something new.
Yes he needs help making his maps appear better (and should probably take the crude collage off the screenshot box) but I think it's commendable that he at least has the balls to try something new in a community that seems to become increasingly set-in-it's-ways. There seems to be an undertone of professionalism on map sites, which is bloody ridiculous. It's a game! People who map for this do so for the benefit of others not to further some career in the industry (most cases). Therefore treat the mappers as such.
@Hal - I was trying to avoid specifics around my own map. Yes a reviewer can point out things that can be exploited but we can't forget that certain expoitations are necessary to any map catering for varied skill levels. An environment that couldn't be exploited in any way would be a cube with no Z axis.
On UnrealPlayground Blitz I think wrote a small essay on strategy and balance which I thought was pretty sound.
Personally the only Soma map I like is Goose, and only for really serious TDM matches. I don't think he should be revered to the extent he is by a lot of people in the community. Praised for good work and achieving the hardcore flow yes, but not used as a yardstick to judge mappers who are either mapping for a different group or trying something fresh.
I think if I didn't have a set audience for my own maps I'd already have become disillusioned and given mapping up. Not because I lack enthusiasm for mapping, but because people who expect others to give up hours of their free time to make something that is in essence the same as maps that ship with the game don't really deserve anything new.
I think it's an interesting trend to observe that the most constructive of reviewers on Nalicity and other sites tend to take their own mapping a bit more seriously.
It's one thing to point out where people's work can be improved, quite another to bag it.
At the end of the day if people act like spoiled children and constantly demand mappers to adapt to their own idea of "perfection" but can't adapt playing styles for a particular arena the community will fail to reach it's potential. If we realise the work every map has put into it rather than immediately expecting retail quality, it'd be easier for new mappers to gain a foothold and develop their own gameplay styles.
eg. Mellsoft maps suffer from amateur build quality therefore a miniature battle starts every time he posts a new map. Some protest that they tried to help him "become a better mapper" by conforming to set gameplay styles despite the fact he states prettymuch every time he is trying something new.
Yes he needs help making his maps appear better (and should probably take the crude collage off the screenshot box) but I think it's commendable that he at least has the balls to try something new in a community that seems to become increasingly set-in-it's-ways. There seems to be an undertone of professionalism on map sites, which is bloody ridiculous. It's a game! People who map for this do so for the benefit of others not to further some career in the industry (most cases). Therefore treat the mappers as such.
@Hal - I was trying to avoid specifics around my own map. Yes a reviewer can point out things that can be exploited but we can't forget that certain expoitations are necessary to any map catering for varied skill levels. An environment that couldn't be exploited in any way would be a cube with no Z axis.
On UnrealPlayground Blitz I think wrote a small essay on strategy and balance which I thought was pretty sound.
Personally the only Soma map I like is Goose, and only for really serious TDM matches. I don't think he should be revered to the extent he is by a lot of people in the community. Praised for good work and achieving the hardcore flow yes, but not used as a yardstick to judge mappers who are either mapping for a different group or trying something fresh.
I think if I didn't have a set audience for my own maps I'd already have become disillusioned and given mapping up. Not because I lack enthusiasm for mapping, but because people who expect others to give up hours of their free time to make something that is in essence the same as maps that ship with the game don't really deserve anything new.
I think it's an interesting trend to observe that the most constructive of reviewers on Nalicity and other sites tend to take their own mapping a bit more seriously.
