Flag Pack 2004 Released

[Zlal]

Surley if people play a map more than the other map by a large margin, that map is better? common sense says so anyway

"surely if britney spears tops the music chart she makes the best music and is teh most talented artist?"

No.

Thorns was played a hell of a lot in UT. Does that make it a good map?


A map getting played does not make it better. It just means it gets played more. If it has good gameplay, thats a reason.

 

[Zlal]

These are great playing maps and I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of them online. Thank you for making them.

I can appreciate what Shadowlurker is saying, because looks and gameplay are not mutually exclusive, but to be honest, I thought they all looked just fine. I don't think we should expect professional level maps from the community. Especially if that is not the mappers goal. Neither should we accept a half-hearted attempt with a cube and a mesh - which these maps most certainly are not.

It's fair to compare maps with one another. But these maps were obviously crafted with some care and utilized terrific layouts (both copied and original) and I think the mark they were shooting for was met. We are the winners.

The mappers goal doesnt matter at all. It's just a pointless arguement.
My example of hourences was key - how many years was he "just" a part of the community? And yet he's been one of, if not the best, mappers for the UT series for years, and his maps better than retail quality. The SP maps for xidia/ONP were just amazing. Sure, he works professionally now, but he didnt always.
You have to compare maps fairly - you can't say "oh, these guys didnt aim for retail quality" and give them a higher score, because thats unfair. Just the same as a newbie mappers first map - you cant give it a average score if its poor. You have to keep the opinions balanced and level.
Sure, you may have achieved your goal. But you can always improve a map.

My only gripe here is that these maps are being called some of the best ever - but no one is looking at the maps with a balanced opinion. Yeah, gameplay wise they are good. But visually they range as much as the CBP did gameplay wise.

 

[Super-Moose]

The flag pack has been pushed around all the legues, all the clans etc, and as a result it will be played.

The CBP got way more exposure than the FP, and look how popular that is with the competitive players.
Not at all.

The flag pack is already getting put on a lot of good servers, and many people are pushing to get most, if not all of the maps used in leagues.

The Flag Pack maps will get played because they're good, and not for any other reason.

 

[Zlal]

Just another little comparison: Hourences maps for a living, I'm a cable technician/modem installer for a living, so who do you think will have the advantage in mapping?

Situation means nothing. These maps all play better than most of the retail CTF maps.

If anything, working professionally limits you from what I can see. You have poly limits. The company can change things for the worse. You have deadlines.
Advantages... you get paid.

Let's face it, most maps for the game arn't exactly what you'd call great visually or playing.

 

[Zimeon]

"surely if britney spears tops the music chart she makes the best music and is teh most talented artist?"

No.

It's all about taste, some ppl like cookies, some bisquits. I for example listen to trance/hardcore/darkcore which most ppl can't even stand.

 

[Zlal]

The CBP got way more exposure than the FP, and look how popular that is with the competitive players.
Not at all.

The flag pack is already getting put on a lot of good servers, and many people are pushing to get most, if not all of the maps used in leagues.

The Flag Pack maps will get played because they're good, and not for any other reason.

The CBP wasn't pushed around as a great playing bunch of maps. It was pushed as a mappack made by a bunch of community mappers.

But its hard to compare the maps. Especially if you take away the "aim" of the mappers behind them. the CBP had a load more maps, and there were bound to be some poorer ones. But thats not the point I am making.

 

[Zimeon]

The mappers goal doesnt matter at all. It's just a pointless arguement.
My example of hourences was key - how many years was he "just" a part of the community? And yet he's been one of, if not the best, mappers for the UT series for years, and his maps better than retail quality. The SP maps for xidia/ONP were just amazing. Sure, he works professionally now, but he didnt always.
You have to compare maps fairly - you can't say "oh, these guys didnt aim for retail quality" and give them a higher score, because thats unfair. Just the same as a newbie mappers first map - you cant give it a average score if its poor. You have to keep the opinions balanced and level.
Sure, you may have achieved your goal. But you can always improve a map.

Umm, we never said that we don't map for living makes it a reason we should get better reviews or better publicity. You can't really compare amateurs with professionals. We do this for fun, they do it for living. Two different things. Ofcourse the maps are for the same game and should be judged equally.

And improve we will, and we get better by making maps that we like and the ppl like. Perhaps we will work for a company someday, as we make more maps and get better during time, who knows. Not saying that i will ever, or would ever want to but just pointing out that two ppl can't really be compared together, and maps are different when different ppl make it.

/me wonders if this was sayd in a difficult enough way

 

[edhe]

So Shadowlurker.. jealous?

Get over the playability vs graphics thing. A good map can be either, a great map tends to have both.

People will play a good playing map more than a good looking map, i don't think anyone loads up 2k4 as a screensaver.

Great job on the pack guys, it's been much needed for a long long time.

 

[GIdenJoe]

Sure Hourences didn't map for a company all the time, but he sure mapped all day long (skipping school even )

And do you see me bragging about these being the best maps? no.

Our maps are meant to be played on leagues, not to be the "best maps".

And if your gripe is that other ppl tell these maps are the best well, that's nothing we can do about it.

The maps will reach their destined goal and that's ALL what matters to me. And I think this concludes our discussion.

 

[Zimeon]

Sure Hourences didn't map for a company all the time, but he sure mapped all day long (skipping school even )

rofl

The maps will reach their destined goal and that's ALL what matters to me. And I think this concludes our discussion.

Agree, we've met our goal and i'm proud of it, although it took way longer than i would have thought

Great job on the pack guys, it's been much needed for a long long time.

thnx =)

 

[Zlal]

Sure Hourences didn't map for a company all the time, but he sure mapped all day long (skipping school even )

And do you see me bragging about these being the best maps? no.

Our maps are meant to be played on leagues, not to be the "best maps".

And if your gripe is that other ppl tell these maps are the best well, that's nothing we can do about it.

The maps will reach their destined goal and that's ALL what matters to me. And I think this concludes our discussion.

It took you twelve months to get the mappack done, so I don't think tme came into this (apart from the veyr fine tuned gameplay)

If you want your maps played on legues, the best way is to become professional. That way, millions play your maps But like I said, "aim" and "situation" doesnt matter. All maps are done using the same editor. Theres no differences (some people not have 3d modelling programs true, but I've seen many fine maps with just new textures)



Look, I've nothing against the pack. My only gripe is the "gameplay Vs graphics arguement". I don't like focus on one area. I want a map with both aspects.


This pack is what CTF needed to revive, and it's a good thing. I probably sounded far too negitive towards it.

 

[GIdenJoe]

Responding anyway

Look, I've nothing against the pack. My only gripe is the "gameplay Vs graphics arguement". I don't like focus on one area. I want a map with both aspects.



True, you may have that requirement in maps. I don't know about the rest of the team, but I myself will never be able to get at the level where the graphics artists are. What's even harder is combining the two sometimes requires sacrificing things from one side to get some better result on the other side. No matter how you look at it, graphics and gameplay are opposite sides of the same coin. They can exist together but they can be in each others way. The person able to combine these two, praise him, but most mappers won't even get at that point anyway.

I'll prolly stop mapping after this game anyway coz from this point on the graphical requirements to make something are getting way too high for most of the ppl trying to map for a hobby.

 

[anarkist]

Can you stop comparing FP to CBP, they are 2 different things. CBP wasn't aimed specifically at pros, hence 'community', FP is. End of debate.

 

[Nosnos]

As long as the maps are made for a game I'll take playability (fun-factor) over looks anyday. If I was supposed to just look at the maps, run around without doing anything I would like the better looking map. Besides the maps in this pack are good looking imo, sure I play with most graphic settings on low and texture detail on normal to get nice and stable framerates but they still looked sweet...

And about CBP-Achilles which imo is the only really good map in the CBP-packs, it was made by soma and I, among with others, played that map to death when it was only bsp and a single texture, it was still a fun map to play. When the details was added everything was tested so that it didn't interfere with the gameplay, if it did, it was removed. I think more mappers should have this attitude towards mapping, make it fun to play even when the map is buttugly and then you can start making it as good looking as you possibly can. That way you can get maps like Goose and Achilles, that are both good looking and that are actually played more than once...

 

[b4nd1t]

As long as the maps are made for a game I'll take playability (fun-factor) over looks anyday. If I was supposed to just look at the maps, run around without doing anything I would like the better looking map. Besides the maps in this pack are good looking imo, sure I play with most graphic settings on low and texture detail on normal to get nice and stable framerates but they still looked sweet...

And about CBP-Achilles which imo is the only really good map in the CBP-packs, it was made by soma and I, among with others, played that map to death when it was only bsp and a single texture, it was still a fun map to play. When the details was added everything was tested so that it didn't interfere with the gameplay, if it did, it was removed. I think more mappers should have this attitude towards mapping, make it fun to play even when the map is buttugly and then you can start making it as good looking as you possibly can. That way you can get maps like Goose and Achilles, that are both good looking and that are actually played more than once...

 

[Super-Moose]

The CBP wasn't pushed around as a great playing bunch of maps. It was pushed as a mappack made by a bunch of community mappers.

After all the negative feedback about the playability of the CBP1 maps, the team did say they were going to concentrate alot more on the gameplay the second time round.
A few of the mappers even posted betas on proU.
Too many of the maps failed miserably in that department and some also didn't even look too hot.
The FP was only ever about creating well playing league friendly maps, and the FP team have done a great job of that.

You shouldn't be calling maps average (that's harsh, man ) just because it's not up to your standard in terms of looks, when they were never intended to win any beauty pageant in the first place.
Same as I wouldn't bash an angelheart map because it lacks decent weapon placement.

These maps were meant to play well, and they do.
teh win!

If you want your maps played on legues, the best way is to become professional. That way, millions play your maps

Serpantine, inferno, curse3, flux2, icetomb, rustatorium (*shudder*).
All retail but never played.
Why?
Because they play like ****e.

Campgrounds.
One of the most played maps around.
Looks a bit pants don't it?
But people still love it.
Why?
Because it plays v well.

It may be a bit of a surprise to you, but nearly all the people that bought this game, did so because they wanted to play it, not to stare at all the pretty contained within.

If graphics were that important, gaming would have never taken off when all we had was pong.
Gameplay is what it's all about.
Good graphics are just a bonus.

So FP..........is GOOD!


/end rant

 

[Nosnos]

Graphics are important, it's what everyone sees when they first play a game, see a video or screenshots from a new game... How impressed would you have been of UT2004 if it looked like Unreal 1? Even if the gameplay would have been just as good it wouldn't have sold as good and less people would have tried it, dismissing it as old looking. Graphics are what lures players to try out a game but if the gameplay isn't there then they will not play/buy it anyways... You need a combination of them both but I would still put much more off the effort on gameplay, I would never buy a game because it looks good. A game that looks good might spark my interest but I would only be interested until I played and the gameplay sucked...

 

[Zlal]

After all the negative feedback about the playability of the CBP1 maps, the team did say they were going to concentrate alot more on the gameplay the second time round.
A few of the mappers even posted betas on proU.
Too many of the maps failed miserably in that department and some also didn't even look too hot.
The FP was only ever about creating well playing league friendly maps, and the FP team have done a great job of that.

You shouldn't be calling maps average (that's harsh, man ) just because it's not up to your standard in terms of looks, when they were never intended to win any beauty pageant in the first place.
Same as I wouldn't bash an angelheart map because it lacks decent weapon placement.

These maps were meant to play well, and they do.
teh win!


Serpantine, inferno, curse3, flux2, icetomb, rustatorium (*shudder*).
All retail but never played.
Why?
Because they play like ****e.

Campgrounds.
One of the most played maps around.
Looks a bit pants don't it?
But people still love it.
Why?
Because it plays v well.

It may be a bit of a surprise to you, but nearly all the people that bought this game, did so because they wanted to play it, not to stare at all the pretty contained within.

If graphics were that important, gaming would have never taken off when all we had was pong.
Gameplay is what it's all about.
Good graphics are just a bonus.

So FP..........is GOOD!


/end rant

The maps you listed didn't look good either

"average" is harsh? Pfft. Someone needs to look at the mapping scene a little more. Average is a good thing nowadays

I don't like campgrounds. Plays poor, looks poor. Plenty of better maps out there that looked nice and played nice.

Like I said earlier, I don't care what these maps set out to do. I judge them on what they are. Good gameplay with a range of quality in the graphics department. Worth the download? Yes.



It sounds to me as if some people don't apprieciate graphics, which is sad. Without a strive for graphics, why wouldw e contantly upgrade our computers, upgrade games? The gameplay certainly doesnt seem to get any better or original. It's simply because of graphics.
To say that visuals are a bonus.... hmmm.

 

[Nosnos]

The maps you listed didn't look good either

"average" is harsh? Pfft. Someone needs to look at the mapping scene a little more. Average is a good thing nowadays

I don't like campgrounds. Plays poor, looks poor. Plenty of better maps out there that looked nice and played nice.

Like I said earlier, I don't care what these maps set out to do. I judge them on what they are. Good gameplay with a range of quality in the graphics department. Worth the download? Yes.



It sounds to me as if some people don't apprieciate graphics, which is sad. Without a strive for graphics, why wouldw e contantly upgrade our computers, upgrade games? The gameplay certainly doesnt seem to get any better or original. It's simply because of graphics.
To say that visuals are a bonus.... hmmm.

Just look at the list of the most played games right now:
1. Half Life (mods) 70877 players
2. Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory 7859 players
3. Call of Duty 6932 players
4. Battlefield 1942 4657 players
5. Americas Army: Special Forces 4562 players
6. Neverwinter Nights
7. Medal of Honor Allied Assault 4476 players
8. Medal of Honor: Allied Assault Spearhead 4164 players
9. Quake 3: Arena 3152 players 4562 players
10. Soldier of Fortune 2 3140 players
11. Unreal Tournament 2004 3009 players

UT2004 is way down in 11th place, now if graphics was that important dont you think that UT2004 would top that list? Or atleast be second behind games like Far Cry and Doom 3? People are playing CS because it's fun they could care less about how it looks, and the same goes for all the other games in the top of the rankings. Sure graphics might be important for you, but it sure aint that way to most players, atleast if you go by these statistics.

Good graphics isn't a bad thing, a great looking map that plays even better is awesome, but most people would rather play a map that is fun and not that good looking than one that is boring but looks great.

 

[Bot_40]

Erm, 1 simple question...

Shad just said The map could be improved visually. Why exactly do you come steaming in trying to convince people that visuals don't matter? Even if only 30%...10%...5% of the community cared that a map looked good, why should a mapper not bother putting in extra visuals just because YOU aren't bothered?
Sounds pretty arrogant to me

And btw, 99% of the mappers I know ALWAYS have a layout planned before they even start making a map... before they even making the visuals... if a map turns out with bad gameplay, then it was always going to have bad gameplay. It's not some mystical effect that when you add some nice visuals suddenly the gameplay turns bad