Arena maps: A rant.

Username

L2: Junior Member
Aug 26, 2008
96
61
Basically, why don't people like remakes?
Because they take less effort?
Because they're not unique ideas?
Or because it feels like theft?
 

DJive

Cake or Death?
aa
Dec 20, 2007
1,465
741
Basically, why don't people like remakes?
Because they take less effort?
Because they're not unique ideas?
Or because it feels like theft?

I dont mind remakes however what i do dislike about them is not all but most remakes have no fit into the tf2maps play style and the author *porter* make sno effort for it to. If i made q3dm17

map-aedm17lg.jpg


Even if i TF2'ed it up this map doesnt belong in TF2, it was never designed for TF2 style game play and wouldn't fit, yet people do this...

"ROFLCOPTERBBQ!!1, MY FAVORITE MAP FROM 5Y AGO !!11" and they make 0 effort into ever thinking about

Balance
TF2s art style
learning hammer
the mapping community.


I'm not a big fan of any of Viles work * I like Vile though!!* because most of it is ports and that is not my thing. One thing you will see with Vile though is he will at least go with the tf2 art style and i think he changes some ways for balance issues as well so props to him.

There are other "porters" and a main one not to be mentions who don't give a crap about making it "for" tf2, they just want it "in" tf2. They don't change the textures, they don't add anything from tf2, they dont change the layout to fit TF2 and to add balance, Im 90% sure that they just decompile the map, add a CP and recompile it for tf2.

THOSE are the people i have no respect for and i think ruin the community and Custom mapping.
 

Snipergen

L13: Stunning Member
Nov 16, 2007
1,051
150
I'm not a big fan of any of Viles work * I like Vile though!!* because most of it is ports and that is not my thing. One thing you will see with Vile though is he will at least go with the tf2 art style and i think he changes some ways for balance issues as well so props to him.

I agree and disagree, vile uses only tf2 textures and props but he also adapts the old tf style in the quake ages, you can see it in mach, chaos, impact.... Castle also doesn't fit in tf2 etc.
I still haven't figured out why he does that, hes a level designer that takes his hobby serious but I haven't seen a classic TF2 building in one of his maps.
Hes a good guy though, and maps way too fast.
 

Shmitz

Old Hat
aa
Nov 12, 2007
1,128
746
I agree and disagree, vile uses only tf2 textures and props but he also adapts the old tf style in the quake ages, you can see it in mach, chaos, impact.... Castle also doesn't fit in tf2 etc.
I still haven't figured out why he does that, hes a level designer that takes his hobby serious but I haven't seen a classic TF2 building in one of his maps.
Hes a good guy though, and maps way too fast.

dom_canalzone comes a lot closer than his any of his other maps. It still has a blocky q3-feel to it in some areas, and suffers from "must put a point_spotlight on every light no matter how dust-free and well-lit the area might be", but it's still nice to see non-spytech themes in his work.
 

Username

L2: Junior Member
Aug 26, 2008
96
61
dom_canalzone comes a lot closer than his any of his other maps. It still has a blocky q3-feel to it in some areas, and suffers from "must put a point_spotlight on every light no matter how dust-free and well-lit the area might be", but it's still nice to see non-spytech themes in his work.

When I first played canalzone, I assumed it was using hl2 textures. It didn't feel much like a TF2 map to me at all. A lot of the walls seemed to "noisy" to be TF2, and it didn't have the caricaturization and exaggeration that I've come to know and love from TF2. I mean, what's a TF2 map without a giant rocket/laserbeam/heap of missiles?
 

Earl

L6: Sharp Member
Dec 21, 2007
284
38
*sigh* Once again, I'm cursed with seeing both sides of the issue... How about this scenario? My current job is scanning and converting all the blueprints of schools for a school district into PDF files. One day, while looking at an overview plan of a school, I see it could make a good map. So I copy all the PDFs onto a thumb drive and use the blueprints to recreate the school's layout, and turn it into an arena map. This took no thought, no inspiration to make. Yet wasn't it an act of creation? I'm not creating something unique. Yet can't I call the map my own?
Say I took an enormous amount of screenshots of hydro, and painstakingly recreated the map in hammer. Is that any better than decompiling? What is it you have a problem with, the decompiling, or the reuse of ideas?

Recreating real areas in maps is OK. But dont make the copy too true to life, gameplay can suffer. (I also wouldnt recommend making a map of your school, people are too scared by school shootings and all, they'd probably fire/expel you.) Recreating a real life place is takes loads more effort than decompiling or copying an existing level. (My map is loosely based on a real place).
 

Username

L2: Junior Member
Aug 26, 2008
96
61
Yeah, my girlfriend found out about my idea, and she had heard of some kids getting taken to court for making a CS map of their school. Long story short, she made me promise to not do anything remotely near a school or anything I've scanned.
 

Shaar

L3: Junior Member<BR>toboruin
Aug 7, 2008
231
206
I got a suggestion, if people want arena maps of there favourite map by VALVe, Email VALVe and request them to do it. If you wanna see your favourite map arenafied that's custom, Email the creator to do it. Its a damn site easier doing it that way, and then you run less risk of destroying the style of the map that you loved.
 

Sgt Frag

L14: Epic Member
May 20, 2008
1,443
710
I don't see a problem with the original creator of a map to take a portion of it and convert it to a different play style, such as arena. However, the way I look at it, that is their decision to make and theirs alone. They are the ones who came up with the original design, and the ones who understand that design enough to know if it can or should work with a different game type.

So if the original designer makes the modification or grants permission, it's fine because they've made that decision. If someone else makes it, that is unethical, unoriginal, and contemptible.


That's exactly how I feel as a mapper and an artist.

If you're gonna make a map make one. If Hydro is gonna become an arena (which is probably a good idea for alternate gameplay) then Valve should do it.
Maybe instead of doing it you should just write an email to valve and suggest it. If they think it's a good idea most likely it would be done.
 

Sgt Frag

L14: Epic Member
May 20, 2008
1,443
710
*sigh* Once again, I'm cursed with seeing both sides of the issue... How about this scenario? My current job is scanning and converting all the blueprints of schools for a school district into PDF files. One day, while looking at an overview plan of a school, I see it could make a good map. So I copy all the PDFs onto a thumb drive and use the blueprints to recreate the school's layout, and turn it into an arena map. This took no thought, no inspiration to make. Yet wasn't it an act of creation? I'm not creating something unique. Yet can't I call the map my own?
Say I took an enormous amount of screenshots of hydro, and painstakingly recreated the map in hammer. Is that any better than decompiling? What is it you have a problem with, the decompiling, or the reuse of ideas?

There is a difference between using blue prints as a layout, then making that into a playable map.

and

Taking someone elses map and moving a few things around.

That would be like changing the poistion of a bathroom on the blueprint and selling it to someone else as your own design.

One is called mapping

The other is called EDITTING.
 

cornontheCoD

L420: High Member
Mar 25, 2008
437
70
^except you dont make money off of custom mapping

just thought I'd say it. I dont disagree with you
 

grazr

Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle
aa
Mar 4, 2008
5,441
3,814
When you are referencing that material (the blueprints) you are recreating one environement into another form. You are building it from scratch in your own style according to your own creative patterns, adding architexture, spawn locations, game devices, rules, setting lighting patterns. You will develop it for improved gameplay for this game. This is all your own work.

People here reference shacks and 1900 era western mining/outpost buildings from flickr. This is the same. They are recreating them how they see fit, in their minds, for TF2. You would provide gratification to anywhere you took a prefab or model from, created by another person. But changing a mode in an already produced map doesn't make it your work and you have no right to release as such.

Recreating every brush from scratch as to how it was before will not make a difference. The gameplay was designed by the level designer and although changing the mode may likely change the gameplay the environment is still not yours to edit.

I'll try and answer your questions more directly, from my own perspective.

Your school map:

This took no thought, no inspiration to make.

Yes it did, you saw the layout and you were inspired by it, you converted it to work for cs (much as i had mentioned in the first paragraph). You used released public developer material to produce a unique environment never before seen ingame. A lot of games are based on places in reality, that doesn't mean that the level designers shouldn't get credit for producing them.

Yet wasn't it an act of creation?

Yes it would have been, you applied the necassery functions, you provided people with an environment to the level of skill and knowlegde you have acquired.

I'm not creating something unique. Yet can't I call the map my own?

You can, just as other games can call their immitations/replications of places in reality their own.

Try applying this to say (since we are all referencing hydro) Hydro:

This took no thought, no inspiration to make. Yet wasn't it an act of creation?

No it didn't, someone else created it, you just flicked a switch to a lack of better words to change it's mode. It just happens to be that TF2 has more hands on needs to do such things.

I'm not creating something unique. Yet can't I call the map my own?

The map was already created for TF2, no you cannot call it your own.

This gets a little more difficult to define when dealing with "ports" of maps from other games. This area is a lot more grey.
 

jumpyg1258

L1: Registered
Aug 24, 2008
7
0
I recently made an arena map (arena_canalzone) that was a remake of a classic TFC map, cz2. If you look at the download section on this site, you can see that I did not take sole credit for the map and credited Valve for the original map. I think that as long as you give credit where credit is due, everythings ok since you are not profiting on these maps and its for everyones benefit and enjoyment. Some of you say theres no creativity in doing this but I have to disagree. There may not be as much creativity but its still there. Take for instance the map I just mentioned, I had to think up and act on quite a few changes to the original cz2 layout in order to create a good arena map. Heck Ive been tempted lately to make a king-of-the-hill map out of lumberyard but in order to do that, I would have to change quite a few things about the map. Anyways thats my $0.02 on the matter.
 

grazr

Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle
aa
Mar 4, 2008
5,441
3,814
I didn't want to be baited to this, but i am. I feel you kinda missed the point.

You made that remake. Just as i'm making an Avanti port. Valve didn't make that map for TF2 only for you to convert the game mode. We're not talking about porting old maps to the new game as Arena's, but simply changing the mode of an existing TF2 map to Arena. Here, there would have been no modification to the scenery or to gameplay devices, (as would have been required in bringing back a map from TFC (or any other game) to TF2) other than swapping the master entity that controls the game style.

It would be like swapping pl_goldrush track cp system with regular control points to make it a multi stage cp map, and then trying to claim credit for bringing it to the community. When really Valve did all the work. But the same goes for any other map made by any other person.


hydro:
Valve set up the lighting.
Valve made the 3dskybox.
Valve set up the spawns.
Valve assigned the spectator camera's.
Valve designed the layout.
Valve constructed the layout.
Valve set up lightmaps.
Valve set up the cubemaps.
Valve placed the props.
Valve play tested it untill it worked.
Valve designated time limits.
Valve optimised the level.
Valve clipped the level.
You swapped the game entity.

Tell me where the creativity is in that?

P.S. cz2 wasn't made by valve.
 

Username

L2: Junior Member
Aug 26, 2008
96
61
Okay, I've got one last question. What about something like pl_dbheights? New routes and areas have been added, yet it still retains most of the areas that make dustbowl, dustbowl. I'd still say it's a remake along the lines of arena_dust or Avanti, as he changed the map to fit the mode. At the same time I still see how it's 'Valve's map'. Opinions?
 

Shmitz

Old Hat
aa
Nov 12, 2007
1,128
746
I still believe it should be Valve's call on something like that, as a general case.

As a specific case, Valve already made that call when they took dustbowl's layout and copied it for goldrush. They effectively said "we think the layout can work for payload, but it needs significant changes, so we're going to create a new map rather than just modify dustbowl".

Trying to convert dustbowl to payload has always seemed obtuse and redundant to me.