Solid
Author | walrus_of_death |
---|---|
Tags | action author:walrus_of_death bitesized featured playable rated |
Created | 2007-05-26 |
Rating |
4 by 23 people.
|
Map Data | |
Description | 5 |
This map was featured on 2010-08-02
For about three years now I have been trying recreate this map from memory. My product never gets the outcome of the perfectly spaced z snapped mines or the gameplay that walrus_of_death was able to achieve here. For three years I have yet to be able to make a map that comes close to this one. When I sit down to make a map, especially when i don’t have an idea already, it’s this map that is the back of my head when I start out. Of course something different always results. Pretty good for a three year old map. — cucumber_boy
Comments
Pages: (0)
2010-08-03
Nice map
for such a simple tileset. One real enemy and plenty of challenge. The last bit is a doozy. It took me a ton of attempts.
AGD
AGD
Demo Data |
---|
2010-08-03
@ mahi:
"i hate the excuse of "3 being above average". we all know that's not true. we do not give maps we think are "above average" threes. we give them fours. i think we can be unanimous there."
Nope. We cannot be unanimous there. I give maps I find above average a 3, because that's what you're supposed to do. I definitely give out more 3's and 2's than 4's.
Nope. We cannot be unanimous there. I give maps I find above average a 3, because that's what you're supposed to do. I definitely give out more 3's and 2's than 4's.
2010-08-03
Ferox, that map did kinda suck.
Everything these days is about stylistic flair, isn't it? As long is it looks PALEMOON-esque or some other bullcrap it's all "ZOMG 5/5". I've seen maps that are nearly impossible to beat (and in a frustrating way) get high rates due to good looks. I'd understand it if it were just a tileset or an N-art, but on an actual map, gameplay is at least 47 times more important than looks. Also, the new tiles don't mix well with the gameplay. the make the level less crisp from a playing viewpoint. Why slide off of some slanty stuff if it just leads to frustration?
2010-08-03
lets be clear
i hate the excuse of "3 being above average". we all know that's not true. we do not give maps we think are "above average" threes. we give them fours. i think we can be unanimous there.
2010-08-03
Just because we got off on a bad foot
doesn't make me wrong or you right. Your version of this map was worse than the original. I can dislike your tastes in maps and still objectively think that map you made wasn't as good as this one.
2010-08-03
@Maximo
No need to be a *******.. Just because we got off on a bad start does not mean you need to automatically just start hating every one my tastes or ideas. You may have good maps but that does not define you as a person.
Also, I believe I posted this before:
Also, I believe I posted this before:
Atob
I gave you a three.
A three is fine. A three is above average.
This map isn't great, imo, a 4 = great. That's just my opinion, and what you leave yourself open to when you put a map up for voting.
2010-08-03
All the cool people come back
and say my complaints and approvals. Thanks guys. :D
2010-08-03
Dear God Ferox
That is ugly. That map is strictly worse than this map. Even just 1 death because you cut a 6 tile into the flat wall is enough to ruin this map. You just went and put gameplay 2nd. This is exactly what is wrong with most new maps. How come a map of just e tiles can't be a good map? Even if they are all in straight lines? Gameplay>aesthetics. This map has great flow and is well crafted. Don't assume just because you go and add a bunch of useless tiles to the map you somehow improved it because you think it's "nicer" to look at. That is completely wrong, it only looks nicer because current mapping standards dictate you spend 45 minutes perfecting the tileset that players can't even reach and 2 minutes playtesting instead of the other way around. Ugh, I can't believe you actually tried to say that was an improvement to this map.
TL;DR: God Ferox, that was not an improvement at all.
TL;DR: God Ferox, that was not an improvement at all.
2010-08-03
just wanted to mention
came back to play this when I saw it featured, realized I'd forgotten to rate it five like that ancient comment of mine said.. nowadays I'd probably place a map like this one at about 4/5 and that might be generous, who knows, subjective Nyway aint it?! anyways just rated 5. said I would, aeons ago.
TL;DR:
I leik ur m4p
TL;DR:
I leik ur m4p
Demo Data |
---|
Tile aesthetics are an important part of a map [ferox.pastebin.com]
2010-08-02
AGD
Harder than it looks. Lots of fun and therefore, replay value.
Demo Data |
---|
2010-08-02
IMO,
it feels and plays like an extremely generic legacy map with some nice mines. 3
2010-08-02
this is really nice
surprising how old it is
2010-08-02
Little Faster AGD
For me...
Demo Data |
---|
2010-08-02
vankusss
that run was sick.
2010-08-02
disliked it
bad aesthetics especially. and yes, i know this was accepted in '07, but i don't think the "perfectly z-snapped mines" needed to be highlighted in the review; they're not overly attractive.
2010-08-02
Casual AGD
This gets 3 bottles of awesomesauce out of 2.
Demo Data |
---|
2010-08-02
Those mines don't look z snapped
they look c snapped, you can clearly see the lines there. Just saying.
2010-08-02
Pretty great
Yes.
2007-05-30
This is about the fastest I can get
I'm usually pretty cool towards rocket-based maps, but this one was fun.
Demo Data |
---|
2007-05-27
slow all gold demo
I agree with you fully. 5aved.
Demo Data |
---|
2007-05-26
sub 900 AGD
Demo Data |
---|
2007-05-26
...
Speechless...
4.5/5
4.5/5
2007-05-26
5avedsized
This map kicks ass!
2007-05-26
Faster AGD
sub 900 is possible
Demo Data |
---|
2007-05-26
faster agd
4/5
Demo Data |
---|
2007-05-26
Faster AGD
Faster
Demo Data |
---|
flagmyidol