Birds fly. Sun shines. And brother? Brutes shoot people.

New map review suggestion box

For discussion about UnrealSP.org itself.

Moderators: Semfry, ividyon

UB_
Nali Priest Nali Priest
Posts: 7960
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 21:00

Subject:

Post Posted: 26 Oct 2008, 14:13

Honestly I don't really know how to rate the Archi/texturing in UT2k4 maps, let alone UT3 ones.

**** the static meshes.
ImageImage

User avatar TheIronKnuckle
Gilded Claw Gilded Claw
Posts: 1967
Joined: 12 Nov 2007, 07:21
Location: Riding my bicycle from the highest hill in Sydney to these forums

Subject:

Post Posted: 26 Oct 2008, 22:16

Hellscrag wrote:
TheIronKnuckle wrote:personally i like the idea of reviewing non-unreal related stuff on the other unreal engines.
But the current schema doesn't really accomodate the other engines imo.

For example texturing is not as big an issue in ut3 as it is in ut99. Hourences made a map using nothing but static meshes so if we were to review that under the current schema what would it be rated?
no texures = 0 points for the texturing side of the schema right?

So while i enjoy the idea that more mods could be reviewed here i don't really think the current schema holds up with the more recent techniques of mapping.


All of which IMO validates my original reasoning for not reviewing UE2+ mods beyond the storyline of Unreal. They're just not comparable, and to weaken the focus of the site's schema to incorporate unrelated mods made with newer engines would IMO be to undermine the point of having this web site at all.

yeah i completely agree

Ryanx69x
Skaarj Scout Skaarj Scout
Posts: 31
Joined: 06 Sep 2008, 23:24

Subject:

Post Posted: 26 Oct 2008, 22:52

Lol Scrag, I think you took my words a little too literally there. And I did think about how you would have to score maps differently, but if you plan on scoring them the same way you score older engine maps, almost none of the UE2 + maps would be scoreable, the storyline would have nothing to do with the scorability. A newer Unreal map would have to be mostly BSP, which I doubt would happen.

Holy shit, I think I should make a map for UT3 with just BSP, that would rule! But it would be completely pointless :|

User avatar Darkon
White Tusk White Tusk
Posts: 2239
Joined: 12 Nov 2007, 15:11
Location: P46153

Subject:

Post Posted: 27 Oct 2008, 14:22

TheIronKnuckle wrote:personally i like the idea of reviewing non-unreal related stuff on the other unreal engines.
But the current schema doesn't really accomodate the other engines imo.


ouch.. that would be a pain... and I'm just thinking of products like WoT, Rune, etc.. (non-unreal related stuff ....)
Never trust a Dutchman in a tulip fight.

User avatar Semfry
Trustee Member Trustee Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 12 Nov 2007, 02:43
Location: UK
Contact:

Subject:

Post Posted: 27 Oct 2008, 15:04

The problem with no non-unreal UT2004 and later mods reviews is that no-one else is doing them either.

User avatar jackrabbit
Skaarj Elder Skaarj Elder
Posts: 1014
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 21:23

Subject:

Post Posted: 12 Nov 2008, 18:13

I think I made a post ealier in this thread addressing reviews of Zora's episode maps... I would like to revise my thoughts on zoras 1-4 packs.

After replaying the packs offline I did notice that episode 4 (the newest of the series) does in fact have many SP aspects to it. I think Zora Episode 4 deserves an review if nothing else. 1-3 are good at times, but it can be easy to get completly stuck in figuring out some of the extremely tough puzzles. Those packs were meant to be played by online players together (I'm sure thats what zora intended).
On the other hand, Episode 4 has well thought out transitions from map to map and good exploration aspects to it. Although when you enter the volcano, you have no idea where your comming from, the progression from that volcano into the skaarj ship seems to have a very "Unreal" like progression too it. I would like to go more in depth, but I think many of you SP'ers should play only EP 4 and find out for yourself.

User avatar jackrabbit
Skaarj Elder Skaarj Elder
Posts: 1014
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 21:23

Subject:

Post Posted: 01 Jul 2009, 05:18

I now notice that the site doesn't cover the Alshar pack. Would anyone be interested in reviewing this one?

UB_
Nali Priest Nali Priest
Posts: 7960
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 21:00

Subject:

Post Posted: 01 Jul 2009, 08:33

Valley of Alshar? Already been reviewed.
ImageImage

User avatar jackrabbit
Skaarj Elder Skaarj Elder
Posts: 1014
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 21:23

Subject:

Post Posted: 01 Jul 2009, 16:55

UBerserker wrote:Valley of Alshar? Already been reviewed.


oops.. it seems I passed it up when I looked for it. Anyway, it seems that the review there is lacking pretty majorly IMHO. It doesn't cover the maps like it should.. probably deserves a re-review still.

User avatar Hellscrag
Founder Founder
Posts: 4007
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 19:14
Location: In a random access memory of dreams

Subject:

Post Posted: 01 Jul 2009, 23:32

jackrabbit wrote:
UBerserker wrote:Valley of Alshar? Already been reviewed.


oops.. it seems I passed it up when I looked for it. Anyway, it seems that the review there is lacking pretty majorly IMHO. It doesn't cover the maps like it should.. probably deserves a re-review still.


I'm not reviewing it for a third time. Why does every map need to be covered in detail?

Speaking as the one who brought the pack back from the dead thanks to a bit of correspondence with VerMoorD, I think I've championed it pretty well over the years.
Image
Life is what you make of it.

User avatar zbreaker
Skaarj Berserker Skaarj Berserker
Posts: 322
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 21:25
Location: Spire Village

Subject:

Post Posted: 03 Jul 2009, 03:26

Hellscrag wrote:
jackrabbit wrote:
UBerserker wrote:Valley of Alshar? Already been reviewed.


oops.. it seems I passed it up when I looked for it. Anyway, it seems that the review there is lacking pretty majorly IMHO. It doesn't cover the maps like it should.. probably deserves a re-review still.


I'm not reviewing it for a third time. Why does every map need to be covered in detail?

Speaking as the one who brought the pack back from the dead thanks to a bit of correspondence with VerMoorD, I think I've championed it pretty well over the years.


Hear..hear...agreed !
Old as Dirt

User avatar editor Dave
Skaarj Berserker Skaarj Berserker
Posts: 340
Joined: 05 Apr 2008, 15:38
Contact:

Subject:

Post Posted: 02 Oct 2009, 13:21

...Does anyone of you want to write a review of my two SP maps Prisons Of the Unforchers which? These two maps are included as an updated version in the patch pack of the ut99.org-map pack, Vol. 2. Link => http://www.unrealsp.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=859&start=129
I would really, really appreciate it! :) If someone wants to do it, don't forget that there exist two different ways to complete the maps. And another thing: It would be the best if UBerserker doesn't do the job, since he tested my maps 4 times and I don't want him to play the maps a fith time...
I will be very thankful if someone reviews the maps!
Prisons of the Unforchers Retold - more info: https://www.unrealsp.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4565

Kaka
Skaarj Berserker Skaarj Berserker
Posts: 475
Joined: 12 Nov 2007, 00:21
Location: Trójmiasto
Contact:

Subject:

Post Posted: 02 Oct 2009, 15:48

UBerserker wrote:Honestly I don't really know how to rate the Archi/texturing in UT2k4 maps, let alone UT3 ones.

**** the static meshes.


What's wrong with static meshes lol?? They look 100 x better, they have collision they don't eat that much cpu power etc... So what's wrong with them again?? And what would be a problemw ith scoring an Unreal themed UT3 map??

User avatar Buff Skeleton
>:E >:E
Posts: 4173
Joined: 15 Dec 2007, 00:46

Subject:

Post Posted: 02 Oct 2009, 16:06

Kaka wrote:They look 100 x better,


[Edit] Ugh I'm retarded, I thought you were talking about the proof-of-concept static meshes for UE1, not UT2k4 and up. DISREGARD THIS NONSENSE:

No they don't; not in UE1. They look fine in engines that were designed for them, but static meshes in UE1 are terrible; they are limited in that their texture maps are restricted in resolution, the models' complexity is limited by the engine, AND UE1 applies absolutely godawful blurry blob smoothing to meshes (which causes them to be very poorly lit by nearby lighting).

Look at any map that's all BSP; it looks uniform and consistent. Now look at a map that has tons of meshes; they stand out like a sore thumb 99% of the time.

It doesn't matter how good of a modeler you are; UE1 will shit all over anything you import into it unless it's extremely simple and low-poly.

Z-enzyme
White Tusk White Tusk
Posts: 2136
Joined: 13 Nov 2007, 20:01

Subject:

Post Posted: 02 Oct 2009, 16:42

Kaka wrote: [...] AND UE1 applies absolutely godawful blurry blob smoothing to meshes (which causes them to be very poorly lit by nearby lighting).


Lightning on meshes in UE1 is calculated as high range specular. And as it's calculated using Vertex method, and models are very... very low poly, it looks so nasty.

Waffnuffly wrote:It doesn't matter how good of a modeler you are; UE1 will shit all over anything you import into it unless it's extremely simple and low-poly.


I disagree :D I'm helluva modeler and I can create map thats archi would be done using meshes and wouldn't look like crap.

Previous Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

Copyright © 2001-2024 UnrealSP.org

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited