Community Chest #2 Released

wow, compared to the rest of the stuff my map (26) is really shitty!

Awesome work guys

Dr. Zin said:

wow, compared to the rest of the stuff my map (26) is really shitty!

Awesome work guys

yeah seriously 28 is a turd

Linguica said:

yeah seriously 28 is a turd

You make Cybrdem cry.

Dr. Zin said:

wow, compared to the rest of the stuff my map (26) is really shitty!

Awesome work guys

Don't be *too* hard on yourself. It wasn't the greatest map in there, but it sure wasn't the worst, either. :)

Grazza said:

That's assuming you've got the red key. If you were a smart-ass and got in there without first getting the red key, then ten out of ten for style, but unfortunately you are trapped.

Damnit I was sure it was impossible to get over the fence

I guess being a shitty player makes you a shitty mapper as well

RjY said:

Damnit I was sure it was impossible to get over the fence

In case you can't work out where the problem arises, I've put a short nomonsters demo here.

Grazza said:

In case you can't work out where the problem arises, I've put a short nomonsters demo here.

Oh dear. That never occurred to me, but with hindsight it is distressingly obvious.

Thanks anyway.

Dr. Zin said:

wow, compared to the rest of the stuff my map (26) is really shitty!

Awesome work guys

You haven't played map 17 yet have you?

I think the only bad maps in this project were the filler maps.

Having just finished it, I must say I was very impressed. There's a lot of high quality maps in there. I wouldn't call any of the maps bad. Even the "filler" maps were entertaining. Excellent work to all involved, and thanks for making it.

Wouldn't call any of the maps bad? Whatever, mr 13-year old newbie.

A lot of these were crap, either in terms of aesthetics or gameplay. Some managed to combine the two. None of the ugly maps had exciting gameplay so please kids, stop trying to be politically correct and defend the authors. Everyone is free to make maps and release them even if they're not TEH BEST EVAR but whats the fucking point in defending them instead of giving constructive criticism?

Map 32 is downright awesome though. Sure it's damn near impossibly hard, and I could have enjoyed seeing it split up into several "buildings" connected through outdoor areas. But still... fucking incredible map.

There were a few more nice looking ones but map 32 pisses on all of them.

ukiro said:

Map 32 is downright awesome though. Sure it's damn near impossibly hard

I did it Pacifist-style in 30 seconds without undue difficulty.

Anyway, the only meaningful test of a map is the subjective one of whether, overall, you enjoyed playing it. Exactly how you rationalize your reasons for liking or disliking a map is a secondary matter, though obviously of potential importance to the author. No one is "wrong" to like any particular map.

Grazza said:

I did it Pacifist-style in 30 seconds without undue difficulty.

Yeah we all know you're a good player, Grazza. But some of us don't make pacifist speedruns etc - we play the maps until we've finished them and thats it.

Grazza said:
Anyway, the only meaningful test of a map is the subjective one of whether, overall, you enjoyed playing it. Exactly how you rationalize your reasons for liking or disliking a map is a secondary matter, though obviously of potential importance to the author. No one is "wrong" to like any particular map. [/B]

Well argued - but my point was that saying that "none of the maps are bad" makes no sense. Surely even someone with such a hard focus on gameplay as yourself must see that this set of maps has some really bad as well as some really good maps?

Likewise, defending some of the uglier maps with the argument that gameplay makes up for looks when the gameplay is identical to (or, in several cases arguably worse than) the lookers, is just pathetic attempts at misdirected political correctness.

I'm an average player who likes recording, and I would argue that a map can hardly be called "almost impossibly hard" if you can reach the exit quite easily. Similar situation to HR map26, I guess - a very hard map if you want to kill everything, certainly (though a bigger slice of luck is needed if you just want to run straight to the exit). The difficulty of a map varies depending on how you choose to play it, but I'd regard the most fundamental measurement of difficulty as being how hard it is to reach the exit on UV (except for cases where the textfile makes it clear that HMP is the recommended skill for general playing, etc.).

Ukiro said:
Likewise, defending some of the uglier maps with the argument that gameplay makes up for looks when the gameplay

My basic point was that "looks vs gameplay" is a false distinction/argument (since the two are wholly intertwined), and that it's the overall impression that the experience of playing the map makes that really counts. This is a combination of many factors, and will be experienced differently by different players. If someone says they enjoyed playing all 32 maps, then that may well be an honest statement on their part, rather than any sort of political correctness.

ukiro said:

Wouldn't call any of the maps bad? Whatever, mr 13-year old newbie.

A lot of these were crap, either in terms of aesthetics or gameplay. Some managed to combine the two. None of the ugly maps had exciting gameplay so please kids, stop trying to be politically correct and defend the authors. Everyone is free to make maps and release them even if they're not TEH BEST EVAR but whats the fucking point in defending them instead of giving constructive criticism?

Gee, maybe because I actually LIKED the maps? Yes, they lacked the "detail" and eye candy of some of the other maps, but I still enjoyed playing through them and they did not suck. That's my opinion and if you don't like it, too damn bad.

CC2 was ok, a couple of crappy maps, a few average maps, and a few really good maps. Can we expect a CC3? I think we can!

mystery8 said:

Gee, maybe because I actually LIKED the maps? Yes, they lacked the "detail" and eye candy of some of the other maps, but I still enjoyed playing through them and they did not suck. That's my opinion and if you don't like it, too damn bad.

I think Gene Birds filler maps sucked and I hated playing through them. (Apart from map09.) They lacked detail, and in my opinion, a map that lacks detail and has huge texture missalignments, (map04) but plays good cannot be as good as a map that plays good and has good detail.
It's the same the other way round. A map that plays crap but looks great is not a good map. Good maps have good detail and gameplay.
But, you can like whatever maps you want, it's not up to me. I guess maps that play good are great for recording too...

I would love to see boom screen shots of these huge texture alignment problems in map 4.

Lutrov71 said:

I think Gene Birds filler maps sucked and I hated playing through them. (Apart from map09.)

Gene didn't do Map09! ;)

Graf Zahl said:

Gene didn't do Map09! ;)

No, but it still was a sucky filler map.

Some people seem to be be losing sight of the fact that the filler maps are what allowed the project to be completed. Period.

It really doesn't matter who likes them or not. The project is done.

Searcher said:

Some people seem to be be losing sight of the fact that the filler maps are what allowed the project to be completed. Period.

It really doesn't matter who likes them or not. The project is done.

Hey, relax...

Searcher said:

I would love to see boom screen shots of these huge texture alignment problems in map 4.

Sorry, I was thinking about the old map04 in the beta-versions of CC2.
It's now map08. Look at the big staircase at the start of the map.

You know, I think that if you actually built such a structure in real life, you would more than likely have discontinuities in the patterns at those points, as you would use separate blocks of rock rather than somehow carving it out of one humungous piece.

Grazza said:

You know, I think that if you actually built such a structure in real life, you would more than likely have discontinuities in the patterns at those points, as you would use separate blocks of rock rather than somehow carving it out of one humungous piece.

That's got to be a good excuse for being lazy and not aligning your textures if I ever heard one.

Not at all. In most cases that reasoning wouldn't apply. Why not try to point out a genuinely sloppy case of bad alignment?

This is one. I might be persuaded that it isn't if the map would be high-quality otherwise, but it really isn't, so it makes much more sense to assume that this was not done deliberately.

Grazza said:

You know, I think that if you actually built such a structure in real life, you would more than likely have discontinuities in the patterns at those points, as you would use separate blocks of rock rather than somehow carving it out of one humungous piece.

Come on now. All that is needed is for the textures to be lower unpegged and it would be sorted. It's the sloppiest and easiest misalignment to fix there is.

Unless of course he was going for some sort of effect...

But anyway, I'm not going to bitch about these filler maps. They weren't made for the project, and were only included because somebody else didn't keep up their end of the bargain by finishing their own map on time.

The Flange Peddler said:

All that is needed is for the textures to be lower unpegged and it would be sorted.

Having taken a look at how it would appear in that case, I would have to disagree.

If one texture missalignment can make someone not like a map or make one question the quality of a wad, then it really wonders me why they even play to start with. You don't need to stop the train because one seat is dirty.