This thread is a mess, so I went back and read the first post again...
Seriously, whats the valid reason that every texture must be a tf2 texture? Realistic textures look like crap because they are realistic?
Most people have nothing against non-tf2 textures/props if they are used in the right manner. If the contrast between styles is too great it will look out of place and wierd.
Realistic textures does not look like crap by default, obviously. But they don't belong in the realm of tf2.
Imagine if the rocket launcher from Crysis were to be replaced with the tf2 equivalent, It would surely look like crap in the eyes of Crysis players. The tf2 rocket laucher is not ugly in itself, it just doesn't fit into the Crysis mold.
Here's what I don't understand: its ok to create new gameplay styles but a single texture thats not pure to the valve style isnt. Why the seperation of the two concepts?
People that creates new gamemodes are not instantly praised, I would say it more of an uphill struggle where almost everyone is sceptical until it can be proven to work. If it's fun, why not play it?
The same would go for textures, If a non-tf2 texture can be used properly and it's proven to work in that environment, why not use it?
This distain even goes as far that a map 'sucks' simply because of a texture choice. What is it about the default textures that are so important but isnt important for gameplay?
This is a question I can only give my personal opinion on, every individual is different after all.
Overall I think I would get a negative impression of the map if the textures in question are very noticeable. If I lose the immersion I have in the game while playing my first thing to do would be to nitpick on small details, since I would not be able to focus on the game. I can still play but I wouldn't be very psyched up. (Maybe that's why testing maps in dev textures work? Finding small problems is easier with the non-immersive gameplay...)
If it's just a single wall in the entire map that I think is badly textured it won't bother me... but depending on the scale of the 'problem' I might act differently.
I have heard the statements about how valve through out all previos things and started from scratch...but is this a valid reason to copy everything they do?
I don't think mappers see themselves 'copying' valve's work. I see it as 'expanding' or 'reworking' with the existing tools and materials.
As for creating a whole new style...
Models (characters and weapons) have the same style as the props and textures, we can only change the props and textures through mapping(with custom content) but the player models can not be altered.
Having 2 different styles at the same time can, and probably will, look bad. So most mappers try to keep their custom content and maps as close to the original style as possible.
doesnt that mean exactly the thing to do is to look outside the standards and determine what is possible. This is ok for making new gameplay styles, but should it not extend beyond the arrangement of props, entities and a couple digits typed into the settings?
There are many maps which are not set in the typical desert/alpine/industrial setting that valve gave us from the beginning. That proves that people are already looking outside the standards. A good example would be tc_meridian which is both custom gamemode (ctf tc) and custom setting (tropic/volcanic island). But it is a lot of work and not many people have the time or patience for a project of such scale, so the standard themes will of couse be more common.
It's important that that we don't stray too far from the original standard but it's up to each and every person to judge how far they are willing to go.