CTF-Boxed
Map Info
	File Name ctf-boxed.zip Author Shadow-Zero Gametype UT Capture the Flag Date Added 05-20-2001 File Version 1.00 File Size 409 kb Player Count 12-18 Map Description None Review Rating 4 User Rating 7.5 Overall Rating 5.0
Review
Reviewer Gnome and Sapper Awe Score:  1.0/3 Date 02-21-2006 Build Score:  2.0/3 Review Schema Cast Score:  1.0/3 User Point:  +1 Overall Score:  5.0/10 CTF-Boxed by Shadow-Zero AWE: 1.0 BUILD: 2.0 CAST: 1.0 ADRENALINE RATING: 2/5 RECOMMENDED NUMBER OF PLAYERS: 12-14 GNOME: Do you remember back in the early nineties when they had The Muppet Show on PBS and occasionally CBS? The Muppets would do their thing on stage and the two old guys would sit up in the balcony and laugh at them. I wonder if we might be turning into those guys. SAPPER: Not a chance...you're not exactly the grumpy and cynical type Gnome. You'd have to learn how to become mean and sarcastic. GNOME: I'd rather not. SAPPER: Then just laugh with me. GNOME AND SAPPER: HO HU HO HU HO HU! THE STORY GNOME: The Boxed facility was once a Liandri office where their secretaries conducted the corporations financial operations and coordinated with the higher ups. Ever since they built their new 550-story Mega Tower, the old sector fell useless. It made for an easy and low-cost tournament arena conversion sine they already owned the property and profits were high as viewers had the opportunity to look a little deeper inside Liandri. Curiousity makes money. THE AWE FACTOR GNOME: I wondered how users could rate this map so high so we decided to download and play it and do a review on it. Quite frankly, we still don't understand. SAPPER: The texturing seemed inconsistent from the catwalks to the cubicles to the flag room. Lighting was extremely poor and the theme was equally confusing. Honestly, if people once filed paperwork here, don't you think there would be more light? Maybe some SOURCED light at least? And if one is supposed to go up and down those backhall stairs without falling and cracking their skull...I'd say put some light there too. THE BUILD GNOME: ... SAPPER: Well? GNOME: I'm trying to think of something nice to say. SAPPER: Well then, while you're thinking, let me tell them how it is. There is no sound. Nothing but the absolutely basic brushwork...boxed you could say. Nothing else of any kind that would make it even remotely interesting. Oh yeah... and there were rounded stairs inside a cramped and very square rising tower to get up to the catwalks meaning you could easy stray too close to a corner and fall off to the very bottom. Not very good structural planning there. GNOME: Well at least the music choice was good. I almost prefer listening to the music than playing the map. THE CAST SAPPER: It should be noted that until such time as the author decides to TEST the botpathing, this map is purely for online play and bots should not be used...PERIOD. There are areas on the map where the bots will be running at the wall. In twenty minutes, not one bot from either team made it to the opposing flag room. And the underbelly of each office, not to mention the overhead catwalks were a complete waste of space because they were utterly useless. The only point of going up top was to nab one of two...count them: TWO!...redeemers. Although in online play there could be a certain level of strategy in their use upon reaching the flag room from behind...I doubt many people would play it for very long. GNOME: ...I'm still thinking... SAPPER: Given the design of the map, I could understand why flow might take a hit here. To pick up weapons or armor or anything other than health, you had to sidetrack yourself which, during online play, isn't usually the safest or smartest course of action. GNOME: Other than all that, perfect 10. SAPPER: Ah ha! I knew there was some sarcasm in you somewhere. You will be turned to the dark side someday. It's so much more fun living in my world. OVERALL GNOME: This map ranks above DM-Fetid and DM-Pyramid. It is common knowledge that I and many other people do not like those two maps. As long as you can stay above those two...there is promise for you. SAPPER: HO HU HO HU HO HU!
Map Comments
redfist 02-27-2005 06:46 PM MST   man now this rocks...........!!!! Charon 02-28-2005 07:38 AM MST   who will be the first one who make some justice to this piece of sh@#$! ? CursedSoul1 02-28-2005 01:03 PM MST   the authors last name said it all :) Map God Of Mapping 11-24-2005 08:53 PM MST Rating: 10   Old, won't try it, 10 here. Kantham 11-25-2005 02:18 AM MST   Those 10's are so mean to the map itself. Ironblayde 02-21-2006 10:11 PM MST Rating: 2.5   Gnome and Sapper, why give the Build 2 points when the only thing you liked about it was the music? I'll give it [2.5] points overall. EDIT: It's cool, everyone interprets the schema a little differently. My personal opinion is that the build score should reflect not only how well the author achieved what he set out to do, but also the level of skill required to execute it. This is not to say that only very complex maps should receive high build scores, but I believe this aspect of the schema ties into the others; e.g. a map that earns points in awe with excellent architecture will of course be more difficult to build cleanly, and thus require a greater degree of skill to build without technical errors, and thus merit a higher build score if done well. So I tend to be sparing with build points for a map that's got nothing but axis-aligned boxes, and still has a bunch of errors. My comments weren't meant to imply that you'd given the map an "incorrect" score, just to convey curiosity about what I perceived as something of a disconnect between the review text and the score. Also, even if a lot of people were to speak up about it, and I don't think they will, there's no need to change the score. I think it's understood that a review is just another person's opinion, albeit a much more informed and considered opinion than that of the average user who just leaves a quick remark. Certainly if your opinion changes, then it's probably fine to edit a review, but that's something else. Speaking of which, I think I'll change my own score slightly. :) Gnome and Sapper 02-22-2006 10:49 AM MST   Just because I didn't like doesn't mean the rest of it wasn't okay. I'm quite objective when it comes to scoring. My reviews themselves are where I express my tastes. I scored it based on the review schema and I believe I scored it accordingly. However...if I have a few people post here saying that the build should be reduced...then I will have no problem updating the score. @ Ironblayde: Thank you for your input. I will take that into consideration in future reviews.