Re: Aries/Toecutter, quit being a coward
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:00 pm
Just so I am not accused of liking one thing or the other, I do like all new original maps, and I also like some new variations on old maps or maps that reuse major portions of old maps - when they are done really well. Brand new-from-scratch maps can be crap, so can remixes or revamped maps. One might argue that the additional level of work required to create an original map over a revamp weeds out a lot of the crap because it takes a lot more commitment of time and effort to create something brand new than it does a remake - but opinions on maps are like assholes, everyone here has at least two.
That said, critiquing a map that is clearly identified as a tournament version of an old standard merely because it IS a modification of an old standard is stupid and petty. If the map ISN'T clearly identified as such in the readme or documentation then complaints are more valid - but if it IS identified accurately such complaints are stupid.
What is equally stupid is claiming people don't mod existing maps more often because they are respecting the "Original mapmaker's goals". Over the past few years I've had numerous conversations with Renwood so I think you can appreciate when I say this statement is one of the most ridiculous myth-related statements I've heard in years, that's saying something.
It would be safe to say a lot of people don't mod existing maps because they are respecting the original mapmaker's RIGHTS over what s/he created - so without express permission might feel reluctant to make any modifications, but how the frak is anyone supposed to even know what the original mapmaker's 'goals' were if they aren't around to say? Is the lack of a two-team option supposed to mean something other than the map doesn't have a 2-team option? Are we supposed to divine that the mapmaker had fundamental principles of mapmaking that a 2-team option would have completely negated - or just that the mapmaker liked FFA games more so didn't want to spend the extra time testing/debugging a 2-team variant of a map s/he designed as a 4 start map?
"Original Mapmaker's Goals"? While I don't always agree with you Zak, in this instance I am laughing with you.
That said, critiquing a map that is clearly identified as a tournament version of an old standard merely because it IS a modification of an old standard is stupid and petty. If the map ISN'T clearly identified as such in the readme or documentation then complaints are more valid - but if it IS identified accurately such complaints are stupid.
What is equally stupid is claiming people don't mod existing maps more often because they are respecting the "Original mapmaker's goals". Over the past few years I've had numerous conversations with Renwood so I think you can appreciate when I say this statement is one of the most ridiculous myth-related statements I've heard in years, that's saying something.
It would be safe to say a lot of people don't mod existing maps because they are respecting the original mapmaker's RIGHTS over what s/he created - so without express permission might feel reluctant to make any modifications, but how the frak is anyone supposed to even know what the original mapmaker's 'goals' were if they aren't around to say? Is the lack of a two-team option supposed to mean something other than the map doesn't have a 2-team option? Are we supposed to divine that the mapmaker had fundamental principles of mapmaking that a 2-team option would have completely negated - or just that the mapmaker liked FFA games more so didn't want to spend the extra time testing/debugging a 2-team variant of a map s/he designed as a 4 start map?
"Original Mapmaker's Goals"? While I don't always agree with you Zak, in this instance I am laughing with you.