What are your thoughts about map remakes?


#22

one key example for me is: in the App replacement for TTY, i was ripping my hair out while internally phrasing „wtf do u fucking want ?”.

  • it's simply possible that u both speak a common language, that is different from my language (eg.: for me, „app” means application (or utility) (eg., Firefox (a web browser), Kaspersky (an anti-malware tool)), TTY means a terminal (or TremFusion's „Tremulous-TTY” client); when Tremulous is started from a terminal, the terminal end presents the in-game console, and allows inputting commands, which is already an application; do u speak this English ?).
  • it's possible that u just don't communicate with MaeJong on topics that expose the differing levels of understanding. for casual topic related to life (ololololo;>), a relatively vague understanding (eg., there was a physical fight at the bar, it's irrelevant who the initiator was) for u may feel sufficient, but for topics like feature requests (especially for the potential implementer), it's simply not permissible.

yes, definitely. which means what ? here r some increasing levels of thinking on this:

  • level 1: what ? title says it all: it's a general topic.
  • level 2: WRONG (in response to „level 1”). there is context (that only hardcore forum followers may spot). basically, „map remakes” actually refers to a few maps presented in the last few months on this forum.
  • level 3: WRONG (in response to „level 2”). there is context, but it's actually the following: the old thread(s) got derailed,1 turned into flame wars,2 ppl started flagging,3 or alike, and admins asked to cease and desist such.4 so the desire is to continue in a permissible way: to start a clean conversation, explicitly sending away any past intentions. so it's a general topic after all.
  • ...

1 2 3 4 deja vu

u've missed the point. the question is not about what „remake” means in English, but about, of the infinite set of possible meanings, which exact one is used here.

sometimes, a bold statement is met with a bold reply. eg.: „Tremulous is all about flooding the game software market with crap.” — „WRONG”. an explanation won't be provided if such would require extreme effort for which i can't be assed. eg.: „infidels go to hell” — „WRONG”. a baseless statement is called WRONG on the grounds of fallacious reasoning. i may also surround such replies with trollage. however, none of such has happened up to this point. the said „WRONG” was just about adding depth to the explanations given just before the said „WRONG”.

more precisely, i generally see both important.

proper placement of quotation marks, use of quotation marks for text structuring, European-style quotes, no sentence-initial capitals, space before exclamation and question marks, z-ization5, immediately-recognizable and unambiguous abbreviations of frequent words; also, the unconditional full capitalization of „WRONG”, „PROBLEM”, etc.. oh, the horrors !

5 SOMG = the British version of ZOMG

  • „All remakes are good.”

ok, so this appears to start out like a scale-based rating poll, so other choices would be along the lines of „most r good, others r bad”, „half r good, half r bad”, etc..

  • „Pretty remakes are always better regardless of gameplay.”

wtf ? that's an independent statement asking for a weighing of the importance of visual elegance and the importance of gameplay (fairness, variety, etc.?). a debate on this is worth a full poll on its own.

  • „Good gameplay regardless of the graphics.”

tasty potatoes regardless of the plate.

as the thread is titled „What are your thoughts about map remakes?”, perhaps „in recent map remakes, good gameplay is achieved at the cost of graphics.” is meant.

however, based on the analysis of the following, probably „Good gameplay is top priority to achieve, regardless of the graphics.” is meant.

  • „Both graphics and gameplay are very important.”

(...)

  • „Fuck all remakes.”

This has a flavor of being the opposite of the 1st option, but with some details: remakes can „go fuck themselves” even if each is a good map on its own, because having slight variations of maps creates confusion and association mistakes.

no, because that would neglect the reasons why they would think that the poll does make sense. explanations should be provided, and this is exactly what has been initiated here.

first thing is to understand what MaeJong wants. also, CBA.

bold statement is met with a bold reply.


#23

kek it certainly is hard to understand "replace TTY with a variant and/or link IRC to the game server"


#24

I think that graphical improvements are always a good thing, but in my opinion they're a bit pointless. Tremulous's engine is very limited in comparison to modern engines: no support for compressed audio or compressed transparent images (TGA is crap), arbitrary map limits, OpenGL 1.x, etc. Even the best-looking Tremulous maps look very outdated.

Gameplay-altering remakes are different thing. For example UTCSUD is a good remake, but the clusterfuck ATCS remakes (like the upside-down ATCS or the doubled ATCS) are bad. It depends on the mapper.


#25

For me when considering the quality of a remake I primarily consider it independently from whatever previous map(s) it might be based on and/or inspired from. As previously indicated, the definition of what constitutes a remake is unclear and can mean different things to different people, it can be gray as to where to draw the line to indicate what is original and what isn't.

As with any other Tremulous map, what is most important to me is the game play, that is one of the primary reasons I play Tremulous. The quality of the graphics of a map is of secondary importance, but it still has some importance as it assists with the immersion into the game and plays a role in terms of the frequency your would prefer to play a map.

Yes the current technology of Tremulous is limited in terms of how far it can go with the graphics (although it can go a bit further with the new OpenGL2 renderer) in comparison to newer game engines. However, as has often been demonstrated with many Tremulous maps, with sufficient skill and effort, impressive results in terms of graphics can still be achieved in relation to Tremulous maps of average graphics quality.

Many people in 1.1 like to use the cheat command that only displays the lightmap for a given map, and for them the quality of the graphics would mean less to them since they would be experiencing the graphics less. But I personally prefer to not use that command for regular game play as it makes me feel like I'm playing in a plain art museum with no art, and that gets in the way of the immersion.

Another important thing to keep in mind with remakes is that the quality of its game play aspects can vary based on the actual game play of a given server, as with any map. An example was given in a different topic that porthole windows included in a remake can make rants swiping humans in those windows very difficult currently on the GrangerPub server (which at the moment has a version of the 1.1 vanillaish qvm slacker's), however, starting in gpp (and with all the 3 basic game modes of 1.3), the melee attack works differently in a way that rants can reach in such porthole windows.


#26

There's a logical fallacy here when it comes to Tremulous maps though: the old map will never just disappear. If you have 100 versions of ATCS with different graphics, nobody will consider them all as independent maps, they'll be grouped together as "ATCS reskins". In this case, there are half a dozen versions of ATCS which have minimal changes between them, and thus the community refers to them as ATCS remakes (except for the original, of course). They aren't considered independently because there is no merit in doing so.

I 100% agree that gameplay is the most important part of any map (and of any game, in a broader sense), but I can't get behind your second statement. I do not think it is objective to say that graphics play a role in how frequently I would like to play a map. Personally, I have found it more fun to play fort5 recently than maps like slimepunk and atcshd, even though I think it is uglier and has worse gameplay than either of them. I've even voted for it in favor of atcs in the past two days at least twice. I think graphics are only important insofar as they properly cover the map, are not blinding bright or too dark to see things against. As long as graphics don't hinder the gameplay (such as dark areas where you can't see enemies easily or misleading textures vs. actual walls), I don't really care what they look like, and if I really need to I'll just use my toggle lightmap bind (which currently I only use on Tremor cuz it's dark as shit).

I don't think the argument is that Tremulous maps can't look good, I think it's that it is not worth the time and effort to make them look better than average when:

  1. The player base is much smaller than it used to be and will continue to dwindle, leading to less players playing the map and enjoying the good graphics;
  2. The graphics of the map will never make up for the ugly models and 2D things (blood, bullet holes on the wall, etc.);
  3. Some players end up having trouble running the map if it is too graphically intensive. This is a problem primarily because players who play Tremulous frequently have underwhelming computers which have trouble running other games (thus why they play a 10-year-old dead game). To give an example, bird^ cannot run CS:GO even on the lowest settings, and can barely play Karith, and whines whenever Karith or Transit pops up on the server.

Okay I have so many problems with this paragraph. First of all, r_lightmap is NOT a cheat-protected command in Tremulous 1.1, and it never has been to the best of my knowledge. It is definitely true that it gives a competitive advantage on certain maps, but since it has never been cheat-protected, it's not actually cheating. The difference between having it on or off is akin to using a lower vs. higher FOV in some other competitive FPS where you are allowed a range of FOV options; if it gives an advantage you should use the best option. It was cheat-protected in Tremulous GPP, but that's another topic entirely.

In terms of the effects of lightmap on a map, when a player cares significantly more about gameplay than graphics, I think it is completely natural (even at the top level of e-sports such as CS:GO) to modify graphics settings to pick the settings which are most favorable, even at the expense of graphics. For example, some maps have spots where aliens blend in, such as dretches being a little hard to see from above on the dirt of ATCS. However, I don't think there is any real "immersion" in a game such as Tremulous to be broken by turning on lightmap.

It is my firm opinion that maps should always be made with the most popular server's gameplay in mind; in this case, and in the entire history of Tremulous, that has always been Tremulous 1.1. No matter what happens, people will always come back to 1.1 in the long run. No modded server, or even GPP, has outlasted Tremulous 1.1 yet, and I don't think any server with modified gameplay ever will. If a remake of a map was made now and designed for Tremulous 1.3, it would be decried as illogical, I'm sure you can agree.


#27

Taste in maps, and one open mindedness in considering new maps plays a role here. I am among the type of players that has grown bored of the game play of ATCS. However, there are some versions I don't mind playing somewhat regularly that have somewhat altered game play that makes things a bit more interesting, or in the case of ATCS 2015, the graphics actually makes me not mind the old game play as much. Again, this is a matter of taste, I know that there are plenty of other players who would firmly disagree with me.

Again, game play being the most important apect, when comparing between a map that has better game play but worst graphics than another map, the first map would be preferable. But when comparing a map with the same exact game play but better graphics than another map, for me the map with the better graphics would be preferable as immersion is enhanced. A Fort5 remake with better graphics could be very welcoming.

Regardless of whether a mapper decides if it is worth the extra time and effort to make a Tremulous map appear better than average, I still find that generally when such maps do exist that those improvements do contribute to the quality of the experience.

Those assets can be improved, even with Tremulous' game engine (especially for the latest version). But it is not about the graphics of the map making up for all other shortcomings, more point is that with all else remaining the same, the graphics does contribute to a certain amount of the quality of the experience.

That problem is not entirely due to the hardware, but also due to the old clients. We have found that the new renderer not only has way better graphics (admittedly still not as fancy as even newer renders though), but generally performs better than the older renderer on the same computers that we have tested the new renderer on so far.

That is the primary reason I refer to it as a cheat command.

We will see if that remains true in the near future. Just because something has remained consistently true in the past, doesn't mean it will remain so in the future, especially when it comes to the evolution of software.

I would disagree. I believe that it would be highly likely that the Vanilla Game Mode of 1.3 will replace the 1.1 vanillaish game servers by preference, even though the Vanilla Game Mode will have a few miner differences in game play from actual 1.1 vanilla (such as the improved melee mechanics I mentioned above). But I also believe that it will be highly likely that more players will enjoy the Swirl Game Mode more than the Vanilla Game Mode in the long the run. Of course only time will tell if that will be the case.

However, whether or not a game play is popular, doesn't change the fact that some "remakes" do play better than their "original" counterparts on some different game plays that the "original" was not designed for.


#28

What are your thoughts about map remakes?

They're alright. I'm always down for original content, but sometimes having someone put the time and effort to change the visuals or the map design to something I might like seems like a good thing. Whether its a different take on a map I love or overhauling a map I hated.

And if I don't like it, I'd just keep playing the original map.


#29

Remakes almost never live up to the original. They are difficult and boring for map designers to create, and very seldom get played as often as the originals.


#30

I dont think remakes need to be 1:1 to the original with better gfx.
That would be lame, its good enough if remakes are a re-envisioning of the general idea of the original.

Its pointless making the same thing 1:1 just with gfx upgrades, if you make something might well introduce new stuff.


#31

hey nubcake!


#32

Hi :slight_smile: