Snipergen
L13: Stunning Member
- Nov 16, 2007
- 1,051
- 150
Indeed to conclude he made 1 good map out of 200. Pathetic.
surge of "gimmick" maps?
- Thread starter DJive
- Start date
Indeed to conclude he made 1 good map out of 200. Pathetic.
Uriak
L8: Fancy Shmancy Member
- Apr 27, 2008
- 543
- 70
Hop la, thread necromancy :blushing:
So I discovered that the issue of "gimmick" maps was fiercely raised here.
To answer the question of OP and complete some things that have been said
gimmick are mostly "unerdone" maps, because
*as said, often a gimmick element is what drives a beginner toward mapping
*mappers thinks the value of the map is in the gimmick, as there are many many of them, there is less incentive to work on polish. If you want your CP map to be played nowaday, you just can't go without polish, because, the place is.. crowed.
*they think as a gimmick map, their work will stays on the "margin" whatever, so it's not important to invest large work in there.
Concerning the issue of harsh/gentle feedback, it's surely is more positive to clearly state what level a mapper should aim for before even asking for details. Still, there is some perverse system at work, there. Attention is raised with graphical details, but at the same time a good map should be checked and checked again in its infancy state. This leads begginners to see their first work trashed/underexaminated, while some of them ask for gameplay validation before detailing. At the same time, people who got some kind of respect will have their dev textured map getting early attention.
I'm aware feeding people with gameplay/layout feedback is more difficult, since the map has to be played somewhere. So in my own first map experience, I stuck with defining gameplay with players of my communauty and it lives a humble life on a couple servers. I still ask myself if presenting it in dev textured state would have been more accepted. Past is past.
What would be the limits of gimmick elements ? Saying that its all that Vvalve didn't do is quite restrictive. In a sence it means that are not gimmicks elements that have been accepted as... not gimmicks. (Steel...)
The distinction teamplay/not teamplay oriented does'nt work, imho. My circular payload gametype is definitively not a classic gametype, as could be a push the flag. It revolves around new HUD, new layout, new strategies. But it does require heavy teamwork, and I admit, is not even fun without coordination :blushing: . But it's still a gimmick.
Then a gimmick map can have polish. But is eye candy what makes a map stop being gimmickly or something players will not consider beyond first attention raised through screenshots. This I don't know.
So I discovered that the issue of "gimmick" maps was fiercely raised here.
To answer the question of OP and complete some things that have been said
gimmick are mostly "unerdone" maps, because
*as said, often a gimmick element is what drives a beginner toward mapping
*mappers thinks the value of the map is in the gimmick, as there are many many of them, there is less incentive to work on polish. If you want your CP map to be played nowaday, you just can't go without polish, because, the place is.. crowed.
*they think as a gimmick map, their work will stays on the "margin" whatever, so it's not important to invest large work in there.
Concerning the issue of harsh/gentle feedback, it's surely is more positive to clearly state what level a mapper should aim for before even asking for details. Still, there is some perverse system at work, there. Attention is raised with graphical details, but at the same time a good map should be checked and checked again in its infancy state. This leads begginners to see their first work trashed/underexaminated, while some of them ask for gameplay validation before detailing. At the same time, people who got some kind of respect will have their dev textured map getting early attention.
I'm aware feeding people with gameplay/layout feedback is more difficult, since the map has to be played somewhere. So in my own first map experience, I stuck with defining gameplay with players of my communauty and it lives a humble life on a couple servers. I still ask myself if presenting it in dev textured state would have been more accepted. Past is past.
What would be the limits of gimmick elements ? Saying that its all that Vvalve didn't do is quite restrictive. In a sence it means that are not gimmicks elements that have been accepted as... not gimmicks. (Steel...)
The distinction teamplay/not teamplay oriented does'nt work, imho. My circular payload gametype is definitively not a classic gametype, as could be a push the flag. It revolves around new HUD, new layout, new strategies. But it does require heavy teamwork, and I admit, is not even fun without coordination :blushing: . But it's still a gimmick.
Then a gimmick map can have polish. But is eye candy what makes a map stop being gimmickly or something players will not consider beyond first attention raised through screenshots. This I don't know.
I know i'm gonna feel so dirty after posting in this thread again.
Steel doesn't have bad or broken gameplay mechanics, or look out of place, it's a completely viable CP structure that required no modding and had several people in this community, including myself, aiming to produce this effect in exactly the same manner; before we even realised it existed in the form of cp_steel.
I can't remember where i said it but it seemed to get an agreeable response from a lot of the community. So i'll say it again for your benefit: More or less;
I'm pushed 50/50 to calling your map a gimmick. It works. It doesn't really stick out other than the fact that i can't see why red or blu would stick a bomb on a circular track and race each other on it. What pushes it to gimmick for me is the uber speed. Your huds fine. It is just the placement in time/reality, the situation itself that really throws off it's believability.
A gimmick isn't necasserily an under-produced map, it is just a trend that beginner mappers intially take this route in mapping; which isn't necasserily a bad thing as they get to learn the software, engine, and it's capabilities. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to release these to the public. I would admit that several of my first maps could be considered gimmicks; but i never realesed them.. Though to be fair, pretty much anything could be justified in HL1 as long as it was made believable by good brushwork/geometry. If it doesn't work in the real world, make your map based in Xen.
But to your points.
1. I don't really agree that the gimmick drives the beginner mapper, it is just the product of ignorance. (That isn't meant to be offencive, it's just a fact).
2. Because there are many is also not a reason for people to neglect polishing their work; they just can't, they simply don't have this abality yet. They don't have the experience or knowlegde to do so even if they wanted to. A result in the trend of beginner mappers creating gimmick maps. If a decently experienced mapper decided to produce a gimmick map it would deffinately be pretty should he choose to put the effert in; heck, a lot of the rat maps for TFC were damn impressive. But they were still gimmicks, because they didn't satisfy the criteria of being a TFC map. As loose as the criteria were.
To your third point, beginners don't invest time in their work because they soon realise that it's not the masterpiece they intended to create. They have improved, and move on to something more advanced. Either that or they just don't have the motivation to stick it out; the only alternative solution for these people is to produce a gimmick map, regardless. The only other option is a killbox.
I'm not as much trying to tell you you're wrong, i hate doing that to people because it's pretty damn mean and makes me feel arragont and egotistical. But maybe that would enlighten the situation more.
Steel doesn't have bad or broken gameplay mechanics, or look out of place, it's a completely viable CP structure that required no modding and had several people in this community, including myself, aiming to produce this effect in exactly the same manner; before we even realised it existed in the form of cp_steel.
I can't remember where i said it but it seemed to get an agreeable response from a lot of the community. So i'll say it again for your benefit: More or less;
I'm pushed 50/50 to calling your map a gimmick. It works. It doesn't really stick out other than the fact that i can't see why red or blu would stick a bomb on a circular track and race each other on it. What pushes it to gimmick for me is the uber speed. Your huds fine. It is just the placement in time/reality, the situation itself that really throws off it's believability.
A gimmick isn't necasserily an under-produced map, it is just a trend that beginner mappers intially take this route in mapping; which isn't necasserily a bad thing as they get to learn the software, engine, and it's capabilities. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to release these to the public. I would admit that several of my first maps could be considered gimmicks; but i never realesed them.. Though to be fair, pretty much anything could be justified in HL1 as long as it was made believable by good brushwork/geometry. If it doesn't work in the real world, make your map based in Xen.
But to your points.
1. I don't really agree that the gimmick drives the beginner mapper, it is just the product of ignorance. (That isn't meant to be offencive, it's just a fact).
2. Because there are many is also not a reason for people to neglect polishing their work; they just can't, they simply don't have this abality yet. They don't have the experience or knowlegde to do so even if they wanted to. A result in the trend of beginner mappers creating gimmick maps. If a decently experienced mapper decided to produce a gimmick map it would deffinately be pretty should he choose to put the effert in; heck, a lot of the rat maps for TFC were damn impressive. But they were still gimmicks, because they didn't satisfy the criteria of being a TFC map. As loose as the criteria were.
To your third point, beginners don't invest time in their work because they soon realise that it's not the masterpiece they intended to create. They have improved, and move on to something more advanced. Either that or they just don't have the motivation to stick it out; the only alternative solution for these people is to produce a gimmick map, regardless. The only other option is a killbox.
I'm not as much trying to tell you you're wrong, i hate doing that to people because it's pretty damn mean and makes me feel arragont and egotistical. But maybe that would enlighten the situation more.
Last edited:
Uriak
L8: Fancy Shmancy Member
- Apr 27, 2008
- 543
- 70
Don't feel sorry of anything. If you didn't believe in what you write, what would be the point of answering at all ? 
Besides, if a somewhat newb mapper, I've gone through other creative activities before and perfectly understand what you're telling me.
Was going to make quite lengthy response but since you point of view is not very different from mine I won't bother. Just to say that even if actual classic layout are believable, objectives are not, drom capping a giant lasers on top on frail wooden tower (gravelpit) to stoling document in a base built under a barn (2forts) to attack a rocket put in middle of nowhere (dustbowl). I take this issue quite seriously since I'm more a storyteller than a mapper, and devised ways to give credibility for my future work.
And yes the uber speed is a totally gimmick element. Requested by testers since people don't seem to understand what double objective means.
Besides, if a somewhat newb mapper, I've gone through other creative activities before and perfectly understand what you're telling me.Was going to make quite lengthy response but since you point of view is not very different from mine I won't bother. Just to say that even if actual classic layout are believable, objectives are not, drom capping a giant lasers on top on frail wooden tower (gravelpit) to stoling document in a base built under a barn (2forts) to attack a rocket put in middle of nowhere (dustbowl). I take this issue quite seriously since I'm more a storyteller than a mapper, and devised ways to give credibility for my future work.
And yes the uber speed is a totally gimmick element. Requested by testers since people don't seem to understand what double objective means.
im currently working on a map that uses the scoring system from Eye of the Storm a Wow battleground... the scoring system is all that inspired me from there, it will have no other resemblence...
basically a 4 point DOM map where holding the CPs give points over time, with 1 intelligence in the middle that either team can cap at one of their held CPs for additional points...
It's really a hybrid of say, CP and CTF... or DOM and CTF if you like...
would you consider that gimmicky? I am not going to release a crap map with bad modelling or textures or anything... I don't feel its a gimmick just another playtype I think would be fun (not just for one map, it could work with different design then I have too...)
basically a 4 point DOM map where holding the CPs give points over time, with 1 intelligence in the middle that either team can cap at one of their held CPs for additional points...
It's really a hybrid of say, CP and CTF... or DOM and CTF if you like...
would you consider that gimmicky? I am not going to release a crap map with bad modelling or textures or anything... I don't feel its a gimmick just another playtype I think would be fun (not just for one map, it could work with different design then I have too...)
I wouldn't consider other play types Gimmick.
Otherwise steel is gimmick, all those domination maps are gimmick.
So i'd say its a mix of gameplay
Otherwise steel is gimmick, all those domination maps are gimmick.
So i'd say its a mix of gameplay
ChronoTriggerFan
L420: High Member
- Feb 3, 2008
- 434
- 73
Indeed, people are missing the point of what a gimmick map is. From what I've come to understand, a "gimmick" is a concept that doesn't wok in its presented form. Ladders, elevators, breakable walls, just don't work well in multi player games such as TF2. As for game types, its situational as well. With control points, its not one set game mode, which makes it easy to make an entirely new game type from it, as valve has done. Steel and DOM work well, branching off existing capture point rules. However, doing silly things like mixing flags and capture points , along with other confusing aspects that don't work, are gimmicky.
Shaar
L3: Junior Member<BR>toboruin
- Aug 7, 2008
- 231
- 206
Well. I started off doing orange X maps, and then moved onto gimmick maps. The main reason why I did, was because I wanted to try and produce something new and different that hopefully people would enjoy, while not hopefully deviating from the art style of tf2 (I never really had much practice with texturing, never could find suitable textures to do buildings). But I never really deviated from the main theme of TF2 game play (E.g. Using one huge capture point for hide and seek, several destructible objects for capture points.). But, to be honest, Doing those kind of maps helped me to understand how to link different entities together and to use the different entities. Granted that they do not need to be used in official style maps, but they can be useful for other games on the source engine which do require them, or, unofficial styled maps which are just for the fun of it.
So the chances are there's probably a tonne of people with the same 2 cents as me.
So the chances are there's probably a tonne of people with the same 2 cents as me.
Kill_the_Bug
aa
- Oct 6, 2008
- 1,949
- 446
Yep making a good balanced map is hard to do. I think some of these gimmick maps are first timers (i.e. my rollerball map vs my bugscanyon), newbie mappers or people who don't want to put in the efftort.
Roller was my very first TF2 and is definitely a gimmick map - it only took me a couple of hours to make whereas my canyon map took weeks / months even with all of your helpfull advice - I couldn't have done it without you and appreciate you answering my never ceasing questions.
Perhaps this is why you see a lot of them happening and people are doing the same:
I look at my 1st (rollerball) it looks like a TF Classic style and then my 2nd (B-canyon -my first real BIG attempt at making a real tf2 map) which is more TF2ish - it took me months - but it falls way short of the types and quality that you others make here. When I see the quality level of a lot of these other maps - I see that I have a LONG way to go.
To make the quality maps, that you guys make, it takes a lot of hard work, study, effort and testing, testing, testing- and I think that this might also be a part of it - unless you are willing to put in the previous things I just mentioned the maps will continue to be gimmicky or in beta forms only.
Last night I played the newest version of the Orange Bomb maps - the map is Gimmicky (in looks) BUT where I hated the 1st two versions of the map - the lastest in a matter of minutes has become one of my favourites and is very well balanced.
Perhaps balance is the key to all maps regardless of style.
What The Funk
L1: Registered
- Dec 13, 2008
- 9
- 2
thought i should join the fray
im a new ish mapper (only just started posting my maps) and yes they are mainly all themed. however i dont like the word gimik. my current map on the chopping block is cp_pacman which is obviosly themed and not in the usual TF2 style. i did this because as meny have pointed out above, that i wanted to make a fun map which was intresting and a change from a normal TF2 map.
my prolem is, arfter more than 500 of TF2 youv played every stock map to the limit and even the popular custom maps become overplayed. so i like to make somthing diffrent but less in a game play changing sence (e.g. football maps(hate them) ) but more ina diffrent theme with a slight twist to usual TF2.
however the main reason new mapps dont do TF2 baced maps qand go off and do somthing random is because its RUDDY HARD to keep up with there quality exspecily on your first map when you have better mappers around you who are doing a much better job.
but dont worry. of all the new mappers i know, they alwyas go to TF2 Style in the end. theyu just need to put out some random 1s first
my £1.56
im a new ish mapper (only just started posting my maps) and yes they are mainly all themed. however i dont like the word gimik. my current map on the chopping block is cp_pacman which is obviosly themed and not in the usual TF2 style. i did this because as meny have pointed out above, that i wanted to make a fun map which was intresting and a change from a normal TF2 map.
my prolem is, arfter more than 500 of TF2 youv played every stock map to the limit and even the popular custom maps become overplayed. so i like to make somthing diffrent but less in a game play changing sence (e.g. football maps(hate them) ) but more ina diffrent theme with a slight twist to usual TF2.
however the main reason new mapps dont do TF2 baced maps qand go off and do somthing random is because its RUDDY HARD to keep up with there quality exspecily on your first map when you have better mappers around you who are doing a much better job.
but dont worry. of all the new mappers i know, they alwyas go to TF2 Style in the end. theyu just need to put out some random 1s first
my £1.56
Ezekel
L11: Posh Member
- Dec 16, 2008
- 818
- 245
TBH i don't think this is a new thing. every fps game i've come across, has it's fair sure of racing/football/etc game types.
now i admit some work really well and some are a lot of fun (like carball maps on ut2k4), but unless the devs decide to release a map of that game type it usually falls into the unplayed-graveyard sooner or later.
i'm not against it. i think its a good thing, since even if someone fails when trying to do something new, it's still something new. maybe the next thing they make will be a hit cos of what they learnt with the 'gimmick'y map they made as 1st experiment.
also when people make their first map, either it'll be a well thought out and researched thing that was planned and will go through several iterations (what i'd like to believe ctf_glassfloor is), or it'll be "wouldn't it be cool if we had so-and-so types of games in tf2?" maps. usually by the time the mapper is done with the map idea, they can't be bothered to work on it anymore so it stays 'orange'.
i think in part there's also been an upthrust of younger players trying out mapping. perhaps this is due to computers being more commonplace for their generation. i don't think i can really form an educated opinion on that though.
course i could be totally wrong about all of that, but that's just my opinions.
now i admit some work really well and some are a lot of fun (like carball maps on ut2k4), but unless the devs decide to release a map of that game type it usually falls into the unplayed-graveyard sooner or later.
i'm not against it. i think its a good thing, since even if someone fails when trying to do something new, it's still something new. maybe the next thing they make will be a hit cos of what they learnt with the 'gimmick'y map they made as 1st experiment.
also when people make their first map, either it'll be a well thought out and researched thing that was planned and will go through several iterations (what i'd like to believe ctf_glassfloor is), or it'll be "wouldn't it be cool if we had so-and-so types of games in tf2?" maps. usually by the time the mapper is done with the map idea, they can't be bothered to work on it anymore so it stays 'orange'.
i think in part there's also been an upthrust of younger players trying out mapping. perhaps this is due to computers being more commonplace for their generation. i don't think i can really form an educated opinion on that though.
course i could be totally wrong about all of that, but that's just my opinions.