Hitman
04-07-2004 02:23 PM MDT | Rating: 4 | |
i applaud your efforts but this is ut2k4 not ut99, if you want to make maps that look like ut99 go make them for ut99. Do you know what static meshes are? On a postive note that tubes looked really good with the spinning texture, give it some more static meshes, make it a little brigher, eyecandy is they key to a good map now
|
Sicko Teddy
04-07-2004 02:37 PM MDT | Rating: 3 | |
IN addition to HITMAN's note I would add-
You are welcome to change the layout, so it will surprise players who are familiar with that map.
And will make it even more refreshing.
|
sandorski
04-07-2004 09:33 PM MDT | Rating: 7 | |
I liked the original, I like this one.
|
shynntan
04-08-2004 12:09 AM MDT | Rating: 8 | |
Very good work, I know the graphics are not like other maps of UT2k3 or UT2k4 but... the power play, the game play and the overall gaming layout are quite a chalenge for the traditional UT2k3 maps... with the AI background of the new UT engine, here we have FUN to take time for playing. I think this is the innovation for this fantastic old idea... And the UT99 forever secret of success...
|
Teh F1shb0t
04-08-2004 05:04 AM MDT | Rating: 4 | |
i never liked the UT1 map, cuz it's boring. why make a 2k4 remake of it?
|
Hellwraith_Cenobite
04-08-2004 06:22 AM MDT | Rating: 8 | |
My favourite CTF map has returned to 2k4!!! Always liked the Skarrj texture package in UT99, and the coloured lighting adds a nice atmosphere. This map has lost none of that, but it is what it is; a port from UT99. However, I will not put the map down for that.
Great job, and runs great on the LAN with bots and people. Nice to keep in the original nether music, too. I like it!
|
GRAF1K
04-08-2004 01:04 PM MDT | |
I agree that static meshes would improve the map, but releasing a map for UT99 because it is't detailed enough is senseless; why don't I just release a program for Windows 3.1 because it doesn't take advantage of current OS capabilities? o_O
|
DannyMeister
04-08-2004 02:46 PM MDT | |
Amen, GRAF1K!
|
Bot40
04-08-2004 05:37 PM MDT | Rating: 1 | |
Because nalicity's review policy is to rate remakes based on the improvements made from the original by the mapper.
I don't see many improvements here, hence the low score.
Not difficult to understand.
|
Toothpick
04-10-2004 02:16 PM MDT | Rating: 10 | |
CTF-HallOfGiants was my favourite map in UT99, I like this one VERY much too.
It looks almost the same as the one from UT99, but the gamepay is super. :D
Great map!
|
SirTahngarth
04-10-2004 08:29 PM MDT | Rating: 4 | |
Sorry, zed.
|
Mad Irish Mapper
04-11-2004 03:26 AM MDT | Rating: 4 | |
Not overly impressed, basically a port of the older map with no substantial improvements.
|
Manticore
04-11-2004 07:09 AM MDT | Rating: 5 | |
I enjoyed the original; this ain't so bad...
The ceiling is so high you could easily add an ion cannon/painter or have airstrikes.....
Whatever.... way to pay tribute to UT99!
|
Shadowlurker
04-11-2004 11:02 AM MDT | Rating: 0 | |
And I thought the relentless wave of remakes had stopped.
Actually, this map was more suited to UT gameplay, so in fact this is worse.
|
Theseus314
04-11-2004 12:06 PM MDT | Rating: 1 | |
This map actually plays worse than the UT version and I see no visual improvements.
|
Orion(Co30)
04-11-2004 02:01 PM MDT | Rating: 7 | |
I liked this map in UT and I like it in UT2004. The low gravity and its vertigo inspiring size appeal a lot to me. The bots are real killers in this one. At times, they almost felt like human players. The only thing really wrong with it is the colored lighting that makes identifying a player's color quite difficult in many critical locations.
|
ZedMaestro
04-12-2004 02:02 PM MDT | |
Umm, guys, problem.
I did not convert this map from UT2003 to UT2004. Someone else has done this while still claiming I did. I myself know that the visuals suck, even for UT2003. I'm actually in the process of a decent UT2004 version that actually looks nice.
The score you have given it is fair. For UT2004 (and UT2003), this map's visuals suck, bots are still not good enough, and yes, the lighting is oversaturated.
I certainly wouldnt have resubmitted this map for UT2004. I dont know who has either. I didnt even know it had been converted - it was only a reply in the UT2003 version release thread that informed me. I wasnt even in Europe (I'm a UK person) on 04-07-04.
Sorry for the confusion, but this conversion isnt mine.
|
T0mbr41d3r
01-27-2005 12:48 PM MST | Rating: 9 | |
Loved the old one and not much difference with this one, thanks for bringing it back
|
Tresset
12-03-2005 03:25 PM MST | Rating: 9 | |
You all may think that this map is old and out dated or that it may not look good but I still like it. It was one of my favorites in old UT and I dont like it that much when people make a conversion like this and they feel a need to change everything about it so that it is only slightly recognisable. So it may not be the best looking UT2004 map out there, but gameplay is more or less as good as it used to be. Looks aren't half as important as gameplay. Some people out there may not have old UT and still want to see the classics, or like in my case, old UT may not work anymore. Don't give these "classic" maps bad ratings just because you've seen them before. Rate them as you would rate the old UT map and take away points if gameplay or something doesn't work for UT2004.
|
Xans_bodyguard
02-10-2006 09:01 PM MST | Rating: 9 | |
I agree wholeheartedly with Tresset. this map was great for gameplay. not much more to say.
9/10
|
UT
UT2k3
U2
UT2k4 
