WadeV1589 Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Ah finally played asteroids and asteroids2. Remember that controversial rant I had about siege_destroyer, not living up to expectations and all...well what about this one? HORRIFIC in a word... it's designed for team FFA yes?....it's comparable to kotor yet again but this time dropping way below it, at least in kotor it looked textured correctly. What the hell is going on with that large asteroid? It's like a case of n00b modelling. Worst thing is that asteroid is hardly a hard shape to texture so what the hell is going on with it? Siege Destroyer actually looks good alongside this...oh boy is this not Raven quality. Best bit of this map? Manquesa's models, at least they look like they were worth the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoman81 Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Woah....Hold on.... No offense to the person or people that made KOTOR fight school ( I assume that's what you are comparing it to) but I have had less problems and better game play with asteroids and siege_destroyer than with KOTOR. The textures are absolutely perfect for the asteroids floating around! It looks fine to me. I don't know how to build maps or even skin a basic model. However, I think I can speak for a portion of the community when I say: IF YOU CAN DO BETTER, PUT YOUR SKILLS WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND LET'S SEE IT!!! The asteroids team, imho, did a lot to stabalize the vehicles enough to use in a huge online game. They appear to have no problem with people trying ot make improvements off of it as long as credit is given. If you don't like it, then don't play it and stop complaining. I have just recently started playing online and from what I have played, I enjoy this more than anything else that is out there. But again, that is just my opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengo Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by WadeV1589 HORRIFIC in a word... . What the hell is going on with that large asteroid? It's like a case of n00b modelling. Worst thing is that asteroid is hardly a hard shape to texture so what the hell is going on with it? I know you perhaps look for different things to me but...I don't know what you are talking about? Are you sure its all configured right, because that asteroid looks fine to me? It seems a bit pointless to worry about the architecture on a space combat map too much anyway, what about the actual gameplay? If you enjoy dogfighting, I can't see how you can't enjoy the far improved combat that these maps have over any other space combat maps - with a bunch of new vehicles and other additions as well, and if you don't enjoy space combat maps then surely you didn't expect to like this very much anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeV1589 Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Lets see me do better? Well if I have to build a space map I bloody will but when it comes to mapping and using the engine to its fullest I think my transport rings and gate travel do that and in my last map you could fly deathgliders around a ha'tak (large space ship) so I'm not saying it as a crappy mapper, I'm saying it from 4 years of mapping background. As for the texturing, I can take a closer screenshot if you like but look at this http://www.lucasfiles.com/screenshots/822253.jpg Note that left entrance hole, the texture just stretches like a line of pixels stretched horizontally by several hundred units. That happens around almost every entry hole and inside the asteroid too. And as I said before I love flying in JA, very fun - hell I put flying in my previous map. Just this is hardly bloody amazing. Yet again people saying 'wow' to something that wouldn't be allowed from any of us; it'd be liked but not loved as this so easily is being. Oh and I don't like it and won't play it from now on, but that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to post my opinion here. I've played it and do not like it. The key thing about this map are the ships and they were done by Manquesa and can be spawned in any other map. The rest of it...bleh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 I think Wade has a point about the streached texture, however, it's such a minor issue (I never even noticed it until he pointed it out) that I'd hardly count it against the map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR-0927 Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Man, WadeV1589, I wish I had what you are smoking. I don't get why you dislike this map. The asteroids look VERY REALISTIC. As for the gameplay, it beats all. My only complain is the TIE Bomber and the screwed up hyperspace effects (for me at least, hey...nobody told me how to fix it yet). Otherwise, the map is like...HEAVEN!! I offer you a challenge though. If you are such a good mapper, why don't you make the following map: A flight map in space with a ton of space docks and space stations (maybe not a ton, maybe four). Also, why don't you make it so you can fly around, and in (and possibly it) a Correllian Corvette or an Imperial Star Destroyer? Put a whole bunch of vehicles in hangars (use Manquesa's, and other too) like ships from all eras. Or maybe you could have 2 maps. One with Prequel Era ships, one with Original Trilogy ships. You could also make it so you could fly back to the hangars for repairs or a new ship (or maybe that is what the space docks and space stations are for). I will definitely respect you or anyone that can do what I just said. I will accept your opinion too, IF your texturing were to be better. Well we'll see if you do, and if you don't we know what that means... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengo Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by WadeV1589 And as I said before I love flying in JA, very fun - hell I put flying in my previous map. Just this is hardly bloody amazing. Yet again people saying 'wow' to something that wouldn't be allowed from any of us; it'd be liked but not loved as this so easily is being. You seem just a little bitter to me and I don't really get that - KOTOR was in my opinion not as good as this and yet has recieved many thousands of downloads and huge publicity and adoration too. I guess people are more excited because Raven employees worked on this but so what? It's just the same as people getting an awful lot more excited about a new map from LDJ than they would from me, its the way things should be as far as I can see - higher skill = higher expectations. I still don't see how if you love flying in JA you could so utterly hate this - regardless of the texturing on the asteroids and it not being a huge leap forwards, and a few teething problems - its basically flying in JA, and in the purest form we have yet to see it, what makes it "HORRIFIC" as you said except the feeling you have that it is a bit over hyped? People should note that Wade is a highly skilled and experienced mapper and I have no doubt he could create an excellent space map if he wished, he does speak from a position of mapping skills and knowledge and questioning his abilities in this area is kinda pointless. I'm just questioning his reasoning, but obviously anyone who doesn't like it has every right to their opinion - I just think you kind of set out to dislike it, because no one who really enjoys JA flying could hate this so much, as far as I can see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 And might I add that Zer0-L0giC is the guy who did not only the asteroids maps, but also Siege Destroyer. ANd he purposefully designed the hangars and texturing of the asteroid to be as they are, to make it look like a n00b did them, and not a paid Raven Software employee. So Zer0 did sacrifice the look in order to be more on the lines of an amateur map with awesome vehicles and codes, than a professionally designed map with uber textures and flawless design with awesome vehicles and such. He probably put in next to zero (no pun intended) effort in his mind as to the level of quality for the hangars. The only true professional thing about the map is its optimization for network play, and the codes that came from Mike and also a few outside admin coders who offered their coding for our admin commands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeV1589 Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Wait wait, he 'dumbed himself down'? You're teling me of all the insultive things he did he made a poorly textured map on purpose? I'm probably gonna be one of the few to actually understand how insulting to the community that sounds...we know who it comes from so why do a poor job? As for why I said horrific and in light of the new dumbing down evidence, it IS from a Raven employee, people paid for their ability to create superb maps that will make us all 'wow'. In asteroids it is purely asteroids, you don't play in the hangars they're total eye candy; leading from that the main area is a bunch of flying rocks and one large poorly textured rock. Let me say that one more time and tell me how you would have reviewed it as a reviewer: the map has one fighting area with one large rock that is poorly textured with holes in it. Here's my review: So here's the latest from the Raven guys in an unofficial capacity. The map, from the way it looks and the fact it comes with tutorials was probably intended to be a demo map to demonstrate capabilities of JA. The texturing in the hangars is very nice, especially the reflective floors that even I've had to use because they are so nice for the eyes...but you don't stay there long (if you do you won't ever see the enemy!). So you hit hyperspace and going into the main dog-fight area. This area is a large box with spinning asteroids and one large asteroids in the center. The texturing on the small asteroids works well but on the large one it looks like it was done by someone who didn't have a clue what they were doing - not Raven employee quality! If you love flying this map is for you, an asteroid to fly around and thru, breakable asteroids and a large flying area...if you want to play a map that looks good while you fly this won't appeal. While it is great for dog fighting and demonstrating what JA can do it's good points stop there. Do tell me if you think that review isn't honest and to the point. Oh and as for that map idea mentioned earlier witha the 4 bases and so on....no. I'll go and make you 2 ha'taks with death gliders and maybe a planet you can hyperspace to as well if you like but I won't go and do a Star Wars universe space map; it's not something I'd enjoy mapping and wouldn't let me do anything new! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 But what you fail to realize is that Zer0 wasnt going for a knockover, better than average look for the hangars since you are barely in them 10 seconds, on average. He just wanted to create something simple, yet conveys the star wars like look to it. He did the reflective floors to keep the look to give it a better look in appearance, but overall, the look of the hangars isnt what he was trying to knock people over with. It was the gameplay, which some people fail to realize. People were wanting a space combat map, so ChangKhan and Zer0 gave it to them. You have to realize that Chang and Zer0 did this on their own volunteer time, which took away from their real life issues, and some important things at that, as well as any spare time they could have spent doing other stuff, like their wife/girlfriend and hanging out with friends. This project was meant to be the foundation for future maps and show what the JA Vehicle code is capable of doing in a limited basis, although we kind of pushed the button on some things. Plus there were other reasons that Zer0 had to design the hangars like he did, but I wont get into that, but the community need to be more appreciative, which they arent being in my opinion. I mean I look at the All-Seeing Eye, and you know how many Asteroids servers I see at 6:19PM CST? 2... 2 out of the hundreds of downloads that have been registered at the various Jedi Academy community pages. 2 servers, including the one that is properly set up, thanks to Amidala and Rocky Jawa of EscapedTurkey.com (for hosting the server). And for you to say poorly designed is a lot different than me saying a n00b because I have seen plenty of new mappers coming out of the dark with some pretty nice first maps. So its not that he designed it poorly, he just didnt put as much effort into it as he would for a game that he was paid to make levels. Personally, I think the map looks great overall, in fact it looks better than the ORIGINAL idea for asteroids. So in reality, he actually upped the detail in areas, like a better-looking asteroid (as opposed to the simple one that was originally in the map) Perhaps I need to remind you had it originally looked. I have enclosed pictures of how asteroids originally looked until it was decided that the asteroid could use a face lift. As You can clearly see in the 2nd picture, we as in the beta testers had trouble even finding the tunnels in the original big asteroid, which led to many surface crashes. when look at the asteroids trailer from like Christmas or so, you can actually see that the hangars werent actually drummed down that much. If anything, they are near identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeV1589 Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Andy you should know from your place a lot of modders take their free time to mod and come up with good stuff, they're not the only ones who do it. I've seen barely any servers with asteroids on as well and I think it's more a true representation of what asteroids is like. Just because people don't post they don't like it here like I do doesn't mean a lot don't think it. I know quite a few of the more well known mappers don't like it that much. No offense Andy but you've been in with them from the start so of course you're going to like it. The community on the other hand aren't liking it as much. Also in my 'review' in my last post I noted how the hangars were actually the best bit and not the worst as your last post seems to suggest I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amidala from Chop Shop Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 There are beautiful, well-constructed, well-lit, nicely-textured maps that have horrible gameplay (low FPS, bad flow, poorly-placed spawn points). An example is carbonfreeze2 for JK2, a huge beautiful map to gaze at and explore, but because of poorly-placed spawn points not very good map to play. There are other beautiful finely-detailed maps with inventive architecture that other mappers admire, but have low FPS because of all the detail. So while mappers may rate them highly, players don't like them. The Asteroids maps weren't made to impress other mappers with the things mappers notice (architecture, lighting, textures, etc.), because when you're twisting and turning trying to get a shot at a damn A-wing, you don't have time to notice or care about those things. They were designed to give good performance (space combat is inherrently lag-inducing) and gameplay, and I think they succeed at those goals (except for team balance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengo Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by WadeV1589 If you love flying this map is for you, an asteroid to fly around and thru, breakable asteroids and a large flying area...if you want to play a map that looks good while you fly this won't appeal. While it is great for dog fighting and demonstrating what JA can do it's good points stop there.[/i] But what I can't see is how (other than improving the texturing on that large asteroid) a battle in a large asteroid field could possibly be done better? You can't make it any more beautiful because there is nothing there except asteroids, thats aside from the issues of keeping down lag - how can you make an asteroid field look any better? Then in terms of gameplay....its an asteroid field - how can you make that anymore interesting? The only thing that leaves to really criticise are the hangars, and as you spent about 5 second in them each time as you said in your review....does it matter what they look like? No, they're functional and thats all people care about. I mean, if we'd been promised a battle in the skies above a beautifully constructed city (which would make for an amazing level but I imagine would lag beyond all playability) I'd understand your dissapointment - but I can't see what more you could have expected from a space combat map based in an asteroid field? Elvis? The king has left the building man! I think its as hard for you to guage the success of Asteroids as any of us - its certainly recieved a massive number of downloads (and been rated highly on average on site ratings systems) but in terms of servers running it and people playing it - it seems to be more played than most other custom JA maps to me, but thats from a brief glance and nothing more than that. Amidala's point about the differences between the kind of maps gamers and mappers like is an interesting one - its something I've been trying to get around at Map-Review - the idea that we're only reviewing maps for mappers, not gamers as well - which was never the intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Kenobi Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 kengos really got a point wade i mean its an asteroid field, thats all they promised and they delivered, and as andy said this is really supposed to be a bas for mappers/ modders to create there own flight maps also wade you seem to be only worried about looks...kinda shallow Thats the problem with alot of maps/new games even, they are all about looks and dont really worry about how it plays, while this is the opposite, which i am thankful for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoman81 Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I think Andy proves his point about the textures with the pics he posted. There were massive improvements from the early versions. What he said should make people think as to why the textures "look so bad"...To mark the tunnels, maybe? Hmmm...As for why there are only 2 servers running it, it was said that this is a pretty cpu intensive mod to run. Maybe people are having difficulty finding descent servers that can run it...I don't know...never ran a server before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeV1589 Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 What else to expect? Skybox with something in it, a planet or a bright nebula, little thing that adds a lot, right now it's black... Fix the texturing on the asteroid, that doesn't tell me he tried to dumb it down, that tells me if he tried to do that it's insultive to the modding community. Rough up the asteroid, it is rare an asteroid of that size is so smooth and spherical, add some caverns and mountains, nothing huge, just to increase realism. There we go, 3 easy things to improve it; no biggies, just make the map pleasing. Not many more things that could be done because as you said it's just an asteroid field, modify it though and you'd get a far better map. lol I find it insane that you even say 'it's just an asteroid field' but then love it...the mind boggles at how that works. In your eyes what is the difference between this map and kfs? KFS has asteroids that could spin if that's what you like and it has landing areas, it has texture faults but you can't possibly care because you let them pass on asteroids. At least in KFS you can take off, land, get a new ship and fight both in space and standing, best of both worlds of JA. I don't know about the rest of you that 'don't have time to notice the map' but I don't believe it for a second, you must notice your surroundings! You'd have to be dumb or blind to not notice the map as you fly around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingo Dave Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 ...you play asteroids to dogfight in ships, if you had actually played much you would realise that asteroids is not only a cpu intensive mod but also a very brain intensive. need to watch your opponent lots, lest you crash into a giant asteroid. When playing you tend not to notice that horrible texture. On your first couple of tries you do notice it but you get used to it and absorbed into the actual gameplay. The only problem i see is those xwings have concussion missiles for some reason, there proton launchers are very hard to remove and only fire protons:c3po: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightning Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by manoman81 I think Andy proves his point about the textures with the pics he posted. There were massive improvements from the early versions. What he said should make people think as to why the textures "look so bad"...To mark the tunnels, maybe? Hmmm... I think why andy posted those pics was becouse he knows wade is right. i mean come on all your pics and trailers are on the highest quality ever, and the pics that supose to prove that it's way better then the old one hapends to be a really low quality. And to every one who's defending the map. Yes it's a nice map but was it really as great as you expacted it to be, and what they said it would be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amidala from Chop Shop Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by WadeV1589 What else to expect? Skybox with something in it, a planet or a bright nebula, little thing that adds a lot, right now it's black... ??? Do you have r_fastsky 1? Doesn't look black to me. And I'm not an astronomer, but I think some of those thingies are nebula: Originally posted by WadeV1589 I don't know about the rest of you that 'don't have time to notice the map' but I don't believe it for a second, you must notice your surroundings! You'd have to be dumb or blind to not notice the map as you fly around. Call me dumb and blind then. When I am playing asteroids I am looking at my radar screen and for scummy Rebel fighters so I can line up my attack. I am not admiring the scenery (a good way to die quickly). Again, a gamer's\non-mapper's perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengo Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by WadeV1589 There we go, 3 easy things to improve it; no biggies, just make the map pleasing. Not many more things that could be done because as you said it's just an asteroid field, modify it though and you'd get a far better map. lol I find it insane that you even say 'it's just an asteroid field' but then love it...the mind boggles at how that works. The skybox is certainly not just black (well proved Amidala) and although a few touch ups on the asteroids would be a nice touch its hardly going to make much difference to the look or play of that map, a minor thing. Yeh, its just an asteroid field - thats exactly what I was expecting. An asteroid field allows for some cool dogfighting battles, whilst also throwing in some additonal interest of things in the way and potential collisions and stuff. The map itself is a good platform for the great mod work with the vehicles, the two sides and the ships with alternating characteristics. I love space combat, and Asteroids is designed for it to take centre stage. Aside from minor technical issues, I cannot see you've suggested much room for improvement of this concept. If you don't like the idea of a dogfight in an asteroid field then fair enough, but its not like we were promised something else. Originally posted by Lightning IAnd to every one who's defending the map. Yes it's a nice map but was it really as great as you expacted it to be, and what they said it would be? Genuinely, yes. They delivered what they promised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alegis Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Since today i'm getting the error Unexecpted eof when connecting to group 'rebels' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Kenobi Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 yea me 2, and i think its only for the siege destroyer map and i still occassionally get in...weird and to answer your question as well wade, yes i got what i expected, WTF did u expect WADE, the world? Please tell us all. and KFS is no-where near Asterodis quality, i mean its just a bunch of ships on the platform, and while thats ok, the flying space is quite small, being teleported from side to side is pretty dumb, but the most important thing is the gamplay and balancing, which is what asteroids holds above all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeV1589 Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Sorry I should have been more clear on the sky front, I see a few faded nebula's that remind me of the skyboxs of EF quality. I meant a nice big bright nebula that when you see it you go 'ooooo'. As for asteroids being fair teamed...I'm sorry but KFS has equal teams, both have exactly the same number of ships; that is not a valid point against it. And as for " If you don't like the idea of a dogfight in an asteroid field then fair enough, but its not like we were promised something else."....go back and read stuff like 'the asteroids are coming' and tell me it wasn't hyped up like the next best thing since the creation of the Quake 3 engine! All the stuff about it made it sound like this uber mod that was going to wow us all and instead it's let you do what we could already just with spinny things. I play a map for its appearance and it's playability, if it has one but not the other it's a poor map to me as it is to many others; made even worse by simplicity and even more worse by false hype. I stand by what I said before, if this map had been done by someone in these forums I bet it wouldn't have been classed as anywhere near as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_night Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Originally posted by WadeV1589 Sorry I should have been more clear on the sky front, I see a few faded nebula's that remind me of the skyboxs of EF quality. I meant a nice big bright nebula that when you see it you go 'ooooo'.* As for asteroids being fair teamed...I'm sorry but KFS has equal teams, both have exactly the same number of ships; that is not a valid point against it. And as for " If you don't like the idea of a dogfight in an asteroid field then fair enough, but its not like we were promised something else."....go back and read stuff like 'the asteroids are coming' and tell me it wasn't hyped up like the next best thing since the creation of the Quake 3 engine! All the stuff about it made it sound like this uber mod that was going to wow us all and instead it's let you do what we could already just with spinny things.** I play a map for its appearance and it's playability, if it has one but not the other it's a poor map to me as it is to many others; made even worse by simplicity and even more worse by false hype. I stand by what I said before, if this map had been done by someone in these forums I bet it wouldn't have been classed as anywhere near as good.*** *That's a personal preference, they made this for dogfighting, so they probably didn't want any huge distractions. **That is incorrect, they said from the beginning that this would be a TFFA map, made purey for dogfighting *** That is a personal opinion, false, as well as assenine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alegis Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 well the only thing i'd love to see improved, would be to darken the textures of the rebel ships..they're too light IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.