UT3 CTF-ThornsClassic
- Thread starter Syphir
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
hmm, it being a port is irrelevant , the scores in a review should be decided as if its the first time you have ever seen that map, regardless of previous popuarity or the 'originality' that is thorns.
Dont be scared to score it low, even if people think its a truly nostalgic piece of work and you are worried about being critisized by noobs
It is, as hazel said, basically just a corridor with columns :/ and you will instead, be critisized by those that matter!
Its only fun because of what the game offers.. the map should be what you are scoring and this map doesnt add anything to the fun factor.
The ability to create an identical port takes little creativity and shouldnt boost the score in any way. Just see it for what it is and the work that has gone into it and compare this map to others you have given a similar score; take another look at where you think this map lies.
For example Pragmaticus2 is a really well made map, alot of work obviously went into it and what? it only scores 6 more than this? :/ not denying 84 was a reasonable score for that map, just bringing a simple port of thorns into this band of scores strikes me as odd
Dont be scared to score it low, even if people think its a truly nostalgic piece of work and you are worried about being critisized by noobs
It is, as hazel said, basically just a corridor with columns :/ and you will instead, be critisized by those that matter! Its only fun because of what the game offers.. the map should be what you are scoring and this map doesnt add anything to the fun factor.
The ability to create an identical port takes little creativity and shouldnt boost the score in any way. Just see it for what it is and the work that has gone into it and compare this map to others you have given a similar score; take another look at where you think this map lies.
For example Pragmaticus2 is a really well made map, alot of work obviously went into it and what? it only scores 6 more than this? :/ not denying 84 was a reasonable score for that map, just bringing a simple port of thorns into this band of scores strikes me as odd
Last edited:
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
It seems a little unfair marking it down on the visuals when it was submitted as an accurate port.
There was a version of thorns in UT I used to play where there was a top floor on both sides of the hall. To access the floors you have to go through water and then a lift up at the top to take to the floor. It made the map slightly more interesting and took some of the spam out of the map by a bit.
Last edited:
I also remember playing that version or at least one very similar and it did make it a bit more interesting.
yes i see where you are coming from, but the person who submitted it as an 'accurate port' should know that the visuals are horrific, therefore EXPECT a low score for that area.
You are marking the map for what you see, and YES the guy who ported it, may have mapping skills that go way beyond what is displayed in this map, but as they arent shown here, it really isnt unfair. But to be honest, it isnt just the visuals that are a major issue with this map. Where is the gameplay? and no the columns dont save it from being a spam map
Last edited:
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
I have to say that I think it was a mistake to re-score.
Publicly regret the score later perhaps but your original score should stand.
That is the record of what you though about the map at the time - no matter how misguided you might or might not have been in your original rating (and I accept that there is a debate to be had there
.
If we follow the logic through, then every time someone brings out a map with better visuals or some new interesting twist that adds to gameplay then previous reviews should be re-scored to reflect the advances in the state of the art. That does not seem a terribly reasonable proposition.
How to score re-makes?
It seems to me that there are two broad schools of remake:
Even within the bit for bit identical school there are options such as using a different texture set or simply higher resolution versions of the original textures (e.g. import from UTRP). In the UT3 world where everything is a material, I do not see why one should not score on the basis of how well the original texture has been used in the context of the new engine, e.g. does the original stone texture now glisten from the damp. There are many other possibilities where detail can be added whilst preserving the original map. Think of it along the lines of the difference between that photo taken with the 2MP camera and the same photo taken with the 15MP camera - same image but more detail in the latter.
Sorry, that all rambled on a bit but what I'm trying to say is that the "identical" re-make can be scored on the basis of how well the identical remake takes advantage of the new engine even for simple matters like texture use (and, explicitly, the addition of items such as static meshes as decorations will be excluded from the "identical" re-make unless they replace existing structure and provide more details - e.g. torches)
I take the view that the "identical" re-make lacks courage and should be marked down accordingly. That is not to say that "identical" re-makes do not have their place (I've done one for a clan that just wanted to play their favourite 2k4 CTF map in UT) but I suggest that putting them forward for marking is inappropriate.
Far more interesting is the case of the non-identical re-make. How the mapper preserves the sense of the original whilst adding to it or updating it to modern modes is the question. That is also a scorable (sp?) attribute of the map.
My personal view, gathered from working on a 2k4 version of DM88 (a simple U1 map) is that non-identical remake is necessary in all but the most trivial cases.
For example, DM88 has just about every weapon in the game with the ammo nearby. That simply does not work in a modern map. Spawn next to the gloop gun whilst your opponent has spawned next to the shock rifle and you will be toast.
Weapon placement has to be much better considered than it was 10 years ago. So, there's one significant change that will have to be considered.
DM88's BSP was relatively complex for the time and is a mess in 2k4 (either imported or, as I did, re-cut afresh) so significant chunks of the level have had to be re-cast as static mesh. That allows for the original architecture to be retained but made more "curvey" e.g. the original doorways had the stock three-sided lintels and that geometry can be made more complex without affecting the integrity of the re-make.
I've changed the gameplay in other ways, the original level had a mega-health dead centre that could be reached with a single jump from the upper level and then straight back out through one of the corridors. Not all that much risk there, just timing. I've changed that to a health-giving zone, you need to stay around the zone for an extended period to benefit. Much more risk.
Simple things, like I've added a backstory for the map.
I am most certainly not claiming that I have done any of these things well merely presenting them as examples of the considerations that arise in re-making a map. How well these (and other - the list is not exhaustive) considerations have been addressed is, to my mind, scorable matter for a re-make.
Publicly regret the score later perhaps but your original score should stand.
That is the record of what you though about the map at the time - no matter how misguided you might or might not have been in your original rating (and I accept that there is a debate to be had there
.If we follow the logic through, then every time someone brings out a map with better visuals or some new interesting twist that adds to gameplay then previous reviews should be re-scored to reflect the advances in the state of the art. That does not seem a terribly reasonable proposition.
How to score re-makes?
It seems to me that there are two broad schools of remake:
- Bit for bit identical as far as is possible within the limitations of the game engine
- Preserve the broad outlines and the spirit of the level but update to allow for different gameplay or to take account of new (not necessarily better) think regarding layouts
Even within the bit for bit identical school there are options such as using a different texture set or simply higher resolution versions of the original textures (e.g. import from UTRP). In the UT3 world where everything is a material, I do not see why one should not score on the basis of how well the original texture has been used in the context of the new engine, e.g. does the original stone texture now glisten from the damp. There are many other possibilities where detail can be added whilst preserving the original map. Think of it along the lines of the difference between that photo taken with the 2MP camera and the same photo taken with the 15MP camera - same image but more detail in the latter.
Sorry, that all rambled on a bit but what I'm trying to say is that the "identical" re-make can be scored on the basis of how well the identical remake takes advantage of the new engine even for simple matters like texture use (and, explicitly, the addition of items such as static meshes as decorations will be excluded from the "identical" re-make unless they replace existing structure and provide more details - e.g. torches)
I take the view that the "identical" re-make lacks courage and should be marked down accordingly. That is not to say that "identical" re-makes do not have their place (I've done one for a clan that just wanted to play their favourite 2k4 CTF map in UT) but I suggest that putting them forward for marking is inappropriate.
Far more interesting is the case of the non-identical re-make. How the mapper preserves the sense of the original whilst adding to it or updating it to modern modes is the question. That is also a scorable (sp?) attribute of the map.
My personal view, gathered from working on a 2k4 version of DM88 (a simple U1 map) is that non-identical remake is necessary in all but the most trivial cases.
For example, DM88 has just about every weapon in the game with the ammo nearby. That simply does not work in a modern map. Spawn next to the gloop gun whilst your opponent has spawned next to the shock rifle and you will be toast.
Weapon placement has to be much better considered than it was 10 years ago. So, there's one significant change that will have to be considered.
DM88's BSP was relatively complex for the time and is a mess in 2k4 (either imported or, as I did, re-cut afresh) so significant chunks of the level have had to be re-cast as static mesh. That allows for the original architecture to be retained but made more "curvey" e.g. the original doorways had the stock three-sided lintels and that geometry can be made more complex without affecting the integrity of the re-make.
I've changed the gameplay in other ways, the original level had a mega-health dead centre that could be reached with a single jump from the upper level and then straight back out through one of the corridors. Not all that much risk there, just timing. I've changed that to a health-giving zone, you need to stay around the zone for an extended period to benefit. Much more risk.
Simple things, like I've added a backstory for the map.
I am most certainly not claiming that I have done any of these things well merely presenting them as examples of the considerations that arise in re-making a map. How well these (and other - the list is not exhaustive) considerations have been addressed is, to my mind, scorable matter for a re-make.
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
Thanks for the huge feedback
I know re-scoring maps is a bit of a no-no but in this case I felt I did mark it too high.
Your map is more of a redux tham a port so pepole would be expecting a 2k4 version of the map, not an exact replica. In that it took some creativity and imagination. Nice to see you redid the bsp rather than just used a convertor. I agree, those things never really work that well. I came across the same problem when I converted my DM-Quatro. The layout's the same but the look is very different to the original.
Again cheers for the feed back as its always helpful and welcome.
BTW, Would there be anyone willing to become reviewers?
I know re-scoring maps is a bit of a no-no but in this case I felt I did mark it too high.
Your map is more of a redux tham a port so pepole would be expecting a 2k4 version of the map, not an exact replica. In that it took some creativity and imagination. Nice to see you redid the bsp rather than just used a convertor. I agree, those things never really work that well. I came across the same problem when I converted my DM-Quatro. The layout's the same but the look is very different to the original.
This is true and qualifies a new section. I'll add that when I get another one subbed.
Again cheers for the feed back as its always helpful and welcome.
BTW, Would there be anyone willing to become reviewers?
Last edited:
Just consider yourself lucky that I ran out of time and had to take the kids to their Judo session...huge feedback
Thankyou for re-scoring it, really good of you to do so. =] and Ironmonkey i really do understand what you are saying and in regard to what you said about 'having to rescore all maps when one comes out that has more originality/is better etc': when 2 top of the range maps come out for the same game, there is only an unnoticable difference in standard between the two, which would have no influence over the credibility of scoring of other UT3 maps in the same score region.
CTF-Stratus and CTF-Strand, for example; they are in top band of scoring and have little difference in standard between them because both have pushed the mapping possibilities/capabilites for UT3 to the edge, hence why their scores are so high.
This version of Thorns for UT3 is completely out of its depth and was a genuine scoring mistake, because if scored for UT99 it would have achieved around its previous score because its further towards the limits of whats possible for that game, and what is expected for the game.
For example: If this map was made exactly identical for the next 5 generations of UT and scored it would go something like:
UT99=78
UT2004=60
UT3=52
'UT4'=30
'UT5'=20
'UT6'=10
'UT7'=8
'UT8'=6
Scoring should all be relative to the possible top content that could ever be made for that specific game and the scoring will never become invalid as its relative to the capabilites of that game engine. Hope thats clear
and in regard to what you said about 'having to rescore all maps when one comes out that has more originality/is better etc': when 2 top of the range maps come out for the same game, there is only an unnoticable difference in standard between the two, which would have no influence over the credibility of scoring of other UT3 maps in the same score region.CTF-Stratus and CTF-Strand, for example; they are in top band of scoring and have little difference in standard between them because both have pushed the mapping possibilities/capabilites for UT3 to the edge, hence why their scores are so high.
This version of Thorns for UT3 is completely out of its depth and was a genuine scoring mistake, because if scored for UT99 it would have achieved around its previous score because its further towards the limits of whats possible for that game, and what is expected for the game.
For example: If this map was made exactly identical for the next 5 generations of UT and scored it would go something like:
UT99=78
UT2004=60
UT3=52
'UT4'=30
'UT5'=20
'UT6'=10
'UT7'=8
'UT8'=6
Scoring should all be relative to the possible top content that could ever be made for that specific game and the scoring will never become invalid as its relative to the capabilites of that game engine. Hope thats clear
Last edited:
To be clear, I think Firefly did err in the score that he awarded the map.
Part of the point that I was trying to make was that he should have left his original review and the mark alone once he had published the same. Reviewers should review and be dammed.
Firefly, having listened to constructive critisism of his review, could have dis-owned the original review or even written a second review that more clearly enunciated the marking scheme now in operation. What makes me uneasy (only a little!) is that history got re-written.
yes i see what you mean ha rewriting history? reminds me of 1984 by Orwell ( if any of you are readers ^^). Fortunatly, it is only the scores that have changed , not the opinions and justifications he wrote for each sections, which is good. This was just a one-off, unique situation and i highly doubt that normally Firefly would change the scores he has given, just because a few people complain and disagree with his judgements.
I do agree with you, maybe just a small sentence at the bottom of the review to indicate the scores have changed and how this has occured due to greater clarity in how these ports should be scored; indeed, we don't want people thinking the scoring of maps is scatty and unreliable and may change in future.
ha rewriting history? reminds me of 1984 by Orwell ( if any of you are readers ^^). Fortunatly, it is only the scores that have changed , not the opinions and justifications he wrote for each sections, which is good. This was just a one-off, unique situation and i highly doubt that normally Firefly would change the scores he has given, just because a few people complain and disagree with his judgements. I do agree with you, maybe just a small sentence at the bottom of the review to indicate the scores have changed and how this has occured due to greater clarity in how these ports should be scored; indeed, we don't want people thinking the scoring of maps is scatty and unreliable and may change in future.
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
Not necessarily. Based solely on visuals perhaps, but there are some things, like fundamental gameplay, that don't change (theoretically) just because the engine did. Ignore for a moment that the guns are all sorta different between UT, UT2k4, and UT3; assume that they remain the same balance-wise and only get visual facelifts. If that happens, then the core gameplay of the map remains the same every time as the weapons, gametype, etc. all remain unchanged: only the engine changes. There's no reason to score it lower just because it's an older design.
However, obviously there are always differences in the community's thoughts of the time and what people know is possible vs. what people are used to and minor balance changes to weapons through different games, so, really, the best way to score a map is just to evaluate it for what it is in its current context, not past or future contexts.
This might make the score drop steadily over time or it might go up a little with different weapon balance in a newer game. But it won't just automatically drop almost logarithmically simply because the original design is changing; if the score drops, it drops because the game itself is changing, and not just the visual standards.
I have a feeling this post took longer to write than the original Thorns took to make, though. :I
Last edited:
yes you are probably right and yes, i did mean in relation to visuals ( should have been clearer) because the issue raised before was that it was unfair to mark it low as the author was trying to retain its authenticity by using the original ut99 textures/bsp pillars etc even though these are only really 'acceptable' in UT99 maps and would be less 'acceptable' as the game engine improves. Yes, gameplay is a huge factor just wasnt really an issue because we already unanimously decided it had the gameplay of a spam map . and yes marking it in its current context with no outside influences is HOW a map should be marked
and yes, i did mean in relation to visuals ( should have been clearer) because the issue raised before was that it was unfair to mark it low as the author was trying to retain its authenticity by using the original ut99 textures/bsp pillars etc even though these are only really 'acceptable' in UT99 maps and would be less 'acceptable' as the game engine improves. Yes, gameplay is a huge factor just wasnt really an issue because we already unanimously decided it had the gameplay of a spam map . and yes marking it in its current context with no outside influences is HOW a map should be marked
Last edited:
Wow this is definitely more attention then I'd expect this map to get!
Thanks for arguing amongst yourselves haha
I DID expect this map to get low scores - I was absolutely not expecting huge marks on review sites. Though I disagree with the decision to rescore the map, I do understand why you did. And I can agree with every reason everyone said.
I mean, honestly - I made this particular map in less than 10 hours. Though I am happy with the job I did, I know exactly the kind of map it is.
- Low Visuals
- Spam GamePlay
I did it because a lot of people actually enjoyed the map despite those two things. And I knew it wouldn't have been difficult to do, so I did it real quick and called it a day.
Personally, I don't consider this map a representative of my skills as a level designer.
Like I said though, this map was made pretty much for anyone who liked Thorns and wanted to play it. Some people like just killing as many people per round as possible
Point is, I'm not surprised by the low scores. And I appreciate the attention this thread has been getting haha.
Thanks for arguing amongst yourselves haha
I DID expect this map to get low scores - I was absolutely not expecting huge marks on review sites. Though I disagree with the decision to rescore the map, I do understand why you did. And I can agree with every reason everyone said.
I mean, honestly - I made this particular map in less than 10 hours. Though I am happy with the job I did, I know exactly the kind of map it is.
- Low Visuals
- Spam GamePlay
I did it because a lot of people actually enjoyed the map despite those two things. And I knew it wouldn't have been difficult to do, so I did it real quick and called it a day.
Personally, I don't consider this map a representative of my skills as a level designer.
Like I said though, this map was made pretty much for anyone who liked Thorns and wanted to play it. Some people like just killing as many people per round as possible
Point is, I'm not surprised by the low scores. And I appreciate the attention this thread has been getting haha.