DM-Forwhomthebell
Map Info
	File Name dm-forwhomthebell.zip Author Storm Gametype UT2k4 Deathmatch Date Added 08-01-2004 File Version 1.00 File Size 2.11 mb Player Count Unknown Map Description None Review Rating -- User Rating 4 Overall Rating --
Review
No review currently available for this map. Click here to request a review of this map.
Map Comments
Manticore 08-02-2004 05:38 PM MDT Rating: 4   The inclusion of some thematic elements in this map don't really fit, in my opinion, particularly the coloured glass in the windows of a structure that is by and large using industrial/bunker textures. For the same reason the sound fx could have been better chosen. Placement of weapons has not been well thought through. Putting an instagib shock rifle in a normal DM weapons loadout doesn't work for me and the sniper rifle, as in the original, is not in a functional location. Average remake......... Theseus314 08-02-2004 06:22 AM MDT Rating: 1.5   Adds nothing to the original except poor texturing. CursedSoul1 08-02-2004 08:22 PM MDT Rating: 2.5   Hey storm, THIS IS UT2K4!!!! not unreal tournament, learn to use meshes, and learn to use them well. you have no lightsource for your lighting, which is just ghey. And if my memory isnt failing, i remember that there allready should be a map called fromwhomthebellsthingy.. but i cant find it atm. you seem to know your way around with brushes, expand your horizon, learn how to create and use meshes, and focus more on z-axis (ramps/multiple heightlevels etc) becouse at this moment this map looks like it has been made for unreal, and not 2k4. your texturing needs a lot of work as well. learn and make progress. good luck. Doom 3 has a different engine smartypants. and kingmango, HE didnt use ANY meshes, its ut2k4 adapt. that map couldve looked 10 times as good with the usage of good made meshes and even better lighting. The mapper could have improved gameplay as well, and still hold about the same feeling as the old did. some maps overuse meshes, but tons of maps look way better becouse of mesh usage, like rankin you mentioned, it doesnt use meshes a lot, but enough to give the right feeling, some maps need more meshes than others, but not using any meshes and keep the detail so low.. thats just a bad job. and i am not looking at it this way in my own perspective, im sure more people and mappers would agree with me. SilverHairDevil 08-02-2004 11:38 AM MDT Rating: 6   Yes the texturing needs much work but i can tell you put a lot of hard work into the map. There are many different shapes and static meshes in this map, which leads to mediocre gameplay. But it looks like something outta UT99. kingmango 08-02-2004 01:15 PM MDT Rating: 5   I'm gonna dl and play this map just because of all the wonderful BSP I see. People who complain about not enough meshes need to take their ADD medicine. Take out the enhanced shock, pay more attention to detail with aligning and sizing textures, tracks in wall or lift poles for elevator etc... Otherwise a nice map. The projectors w/o light sources... You should beta test your maps before releasing them. And if you did beta test it, your beta testers either didn't help you out or you didn't listen to them. I like the layout and the lack of static meshes. It's the same reason I like Rankin. Shadowlurker 08-03-2004 08:43 PM MDT   Looks incredably similiar to the original :) All bsp = bad - custom content counts for nothing it you arn't making use of the engine. Basically what bot said. Doom 3 and UT2004 use completely different engines. Theres no way you can compare them. Saying that Doom 3 looks great because it's all BSP is a hasty comment to make. It's the use of it that makes it great. This map isn't bad by any means, but with the greater detail (and no loss of frame rates if uses properly) it is possible to take from the bsp and make even better detail. CarlsonNL 08-02-2004 05:29 PM MDT Rating: 1   nice C&P work wilkooo 08-03-2004 01:01 AM MDT Rating: 6.5   BSP = Bad? have you seen doom 3 you smacktard? Anyways, this map is fine, it has decent gameplay and reminds me of half life style levels :) Edit for below comment: I still think BSP = bad is a very broad comment, I'm still in love with half lifes levels and the originality, instead of everyone having the same "static meshes" in every level, I guess :) Also doom 3 looks frieken awesome (I got my copy!) Sorry didn't mean to flame, just bought doom 3 and all it's BSP glory! :D Agreed it is a very different engine. Anyways, lets make nice, and download my new map!! VCTF-Wonderland, should be up soon :) buckets o' fun. Bot40 08-02-2004 08:28 PM MDT   What are you on about? That's a completely different engine and has nothing to do with this. You need static meshes if you want a medium-high detail level since Unreal Engine simply can't handle high polycounts in bsp. Period. For starters it would take a ridiculous amount of memory to store lightmaps for 1,000,000+ polys and a LONG time to calculate them at build time. Not to mention it would also take ridiculous amount of time to do per-poly occlusion at that polycount and you also lose the performance benifits from batched static meshes and a very nice lack of bsp errors/holes. If you aren't going to use static meshes then you may as well stick with UT99. And btw, make sure you actually think before you start flaming other people. Especially a respected reviewer at the same site you are posting on O_o thunderstorm 08-03-2004 05:17 PM MDT   thx for the comments...appreciate it! sandorski 08-10-2004 08:00 PM MDT Rating: 4   It's a good map, remake or not, but certainly taking advantage of what UT2k4 has to offer would make it even better.