 |
 |
|
|
| |
|
I’m now taking a gander at a level for the duellers at heart. The level is by Adam “Pointblank” Berry, and I can’t help wondering if he has any relationship to Richard “Foulman” Berry, whose FFA DM map I recently reviewed. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence. In any case, what does this level offer those seeking a good duel?
Use of terrain in the new engine became very wide spread. It was no surprise, really, because it was one of many things that UT level designers had wanted for some time. BSP terrain was okay, but it has issues and is difficult to do well without putting an inordinate amount of time and effort into it, and even then the results can be less than stellar. The new terrain system makes large scale terrain a fairly simple job to get underway, but something a lot of authors came up against is that to make terrain look *really* good, you still have to put in a fair amount of work smoothing, texturing, applying decoration layers, shaping and generally fussing over a range of intricacies. This partly explains why there are so many poor terrain-based maps since UT2k3 was released. Many authors think near enough is good enough, or that it isn’t worth the effort. Of course, you only have to look at successful terrain-based maps to know that it really *is* worth the effort. As time has progressed, I’ve seen a slowly evolving use of terrain, and quite a few authors are starting to grasp the concepts of how to use it best. If we go right back to the first terrain map we saw for the new engine, DM-Antalus, you can see that it was constructed as a normal DM map, just with terrain as its basis, rather than creating some random terrain and placing weapons and pickups here and there. Every part of Antalus was deliberate and functional. It served a purpose in death match just like any ramps, atriums, bridges, camping spots etc. you find in non-terrain maps. This was something many authors didn’t get. Still, some are coming around, and Pointblank is with the program.
I can imagine the layout of NorthernChill existing quite nicely in a tech-themed map, or ancient or really any other theme. This is a good thing. The terrain is well constructed with noticeable landmarks, points worth controlling, plenty of room to move and good cover. The terrain has five layers of textures, and for the most part they were done reasonably well, with snow capping the high points and earth textures on the slopes. However, in terms of construction there were some issues. Just near the flak cannon is a static mesh sheet which is designed to covey an iced over puddle. Unfortunately, as it is a flat sheet, it doesn’t sit well on the terrain, and as the terrain dips down away from this point there comes a point where the height difference between the terrain and the mesh is greater than the engine height which allows you to step up, and so a player is stopped dead in their tracks and has to jump up to overcome the obstacle. This should have been fixed. Collision is also an issue with several plants around the liquid pond blocking players. You can actually stand on top of leaves on these plant meshes, and the accepted standard is to disable collision on such meshes as it is more realistic than the plants providing obstacles. The author’s choice to include a fluidsurface in the map is open to interpretation, and either way I felt the implementation was flawed. Around the pond area the terrain has an ice texture layer, and yet the pond itself is still liquid (i.e. it hasn’t been frozen). The fluidsurface has then been textured with a blue/white custom texture which is apparently supposed to convey ice. Why then is the pool still liquid? To my mind, this pool should have been a solid block textured with an ice texture. Perhaps even place a physics volume around it with reduced friction so that players momentarily slide over it. The other alternative would have been a crystal clear custom environment map on the fluidsurface. Either of these implementations would have been preferable to the existing solution. The author has also used a few antiportals (three, actually), and whilst they do improve performance, more and better implementations should have been used.
Then there is the consideration of blending static meshes in with the terrain. There is a static mesh which forms a tiny bridge over a little gulley. The mesh is very clearly delineated because the snow on top of it looks completely different to the snow on the terrain it joins on either side. This makes for an eyesore. The author should have either studied what texture was used in the static mesh and created a new layer with that texture to blend in (preferable) or at the very least retextured the snow on the static mesh to the texture used on the terrain. As it is, it seems he thought the terrain has snow, the mesh has snow, that ought to do. There were also a few rough patches of terrain with overly sharp edges that should have been smoothed out. I mention them as they stood out over the good work done elsewhere. Finally, I couldn’t finish on construction without discussing the need to block player access to certain areas. This is even more important in a terrain based map because one of the things to understand about terrain is that it only works one way. When you’re in the editor, if you move below the terrain, it disappears. This is part of the way terrain is used by the engine. What does this mean for players? Well, if you can get underneath terrain in a level, you can see and shoot any other player, and they cannot see you or return fire as it is blocked. You can see the implications for a duel map in particular. The author hasn’t successfully blocked off the edges of the terrain, and it is a simple matter at one point in particular of a very small shield jump (I lost only 4 health performing it) to clear the static mesh ring. Drop down to the floor of the subtracted cube in which the terrain resides (loss of around 50 health, perhaps more, but who cares, the other guy can’t hit you!) and then take pot shots at your opponent above you as they find weapons fire coming at them up through the terrain. This scenario is particularly amusing against a bot. The AI routine tells them to stop running and see who’s shooting at them. Thus, you can ping them with a few shots from the assault rifle, switch to the lightning gun and headshot them whilst they’re trying to find out where the shots are coming from. Amusing diversion but ultimately makes the level unsuitable for duels online or off.
As we move on to the lighting, we again find a mixed bag. The lighting for the large, yellow bulbs is done very well, nicely suited to the light sources and correctly proportioned. After that, though, things go awry. When I was in the level I felt that it was over lit, given the light sources available. A quick check in the editor revealed my fears. The blue lights associated with the smaller, clear lanterns of the Arborea mesh set are horrendously disproportionate to their sources. Whilst the large yellow bulbs have light actors with a radius of 24, the clear lanterns scaled at around a quarter of their size have lights whose radius is at 84. Something a quarter the size is emitting a light with a radius more than three times that of the larger sources. What the? Obviously getting the level sufficiently lit was a problem for the author because he has also placed a pair of low brightness (32), wide radius (166) lights high up in the trees. Why not use a sunlight actor? Just because it’s called a sunlight actor doesn’t mean you only use it in day maps! Granted, there are no definitive light sources in the skybox, but then this should have been addressed. Overall, though the yellow lights are nice, I’m afraid the lighting is pretty average, at best. Not strictly related to the lighting, but the xWeatherEffect actor, set to snow, has far too many particles. The author refers to it as a “barrage of falling snow”, and this is quite apt. It seems exceptionally heavy handed when a nice, light falling of snow would have been more atmospheric for the little clearing this map is set in. The number of particles could easily have been halved, and the velocity reduced by two thirds for a much gentler effect. Perhaps in a team map, set in harsher conditions, such excessive snow would be a better at providing atmosphere. I just didn’t feel that the level of snow correlated with the other visuals of the level. Consideration of the aural aspects of the map is brief. A stock music track, although suitable enough and nary a single ambient sound anywhere. Not good enough.
Finally we arrive at game play. Setting aside the accessibility issue of the terrain, the game play flowed quite nicely. As I mentioned earlier, this is a natural result of a well constructed terrain. Bots move around quite well, but as always there are a few elements lacking polish which are indicative of insufficient care. This map was, I believe, originally intended to be much larger. How do I know? The in game map listing has a recommended player load of 6-12. Let’s just think back to the map title, shall we? DM-*1on1*-NorthernChill. 1on1. With a recommended player load of 6-12? Wouldn’t that be something like DM-1on1on1on1on1on1on1on1-NorthernChill? The author also failed to set the default bot loading to one, which means that if you play the map with a default bot loading, your little duel will involve yourself and four bots. It isn’t hard to get these things right. There are six player starts in the level, which is great for a duel, but anyone who blindly follows the suggested player load without consideration of the map title will likely be disappointed with the spawn killing that goes on. Item placement was alright. I thought the flak was too low, but the bio rifle was nicely elevated, as was the lightning gun. The shield charger was rather too easy to access, and then there’s the double damage. I like its elevated location, and you really need to dodge up the mound to get to it. Unfortunately, the author has left himself open to one of my pet peeves. The bots are not pathed to the double damage. This makes offline matches horrendously one sided as players can pick and choose when they collect the pickup, they never have to worry about when their opponent has the pickup and thus controlling the level against bots is a disappointingly simple exercise.
Amusingly, the author’s text file for this level lists this level as one of the author’s “other” maps. Inflating our portfolio much? Also, the text file lists the level name as 1on1-Unknown. Just a few more of those little details that add to the tarnish. The level is enjoyable enough if you’re willing to overlook its multiple shortcomings, but in the longer term I can’t see this level holding any position of merit amongst the ocean of duelling levels.
Bottom Line: Nice but with too many flaws to rate well.
Score: 5.0
Average User Score: 5.3 (3 scores)
(marking schema)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
SkaarjMaster
Score: 5.5
Anyone who doesn't put screenshots up at UP should be horsewhipped!
.....anyway, on with the scoring. This one has snow and pretty colors, but that's it; Definitely not a TRUE 1on1 (in regard to default bot load that is), too spammy with default bot load of 85,000, get stuck on a lot of things and stuff in the way, hard to tell if bots are really good or not, plenty of weapons.
By the way, just got back in the USA yesterday after a trip to Italy and it seems strange.
2004-10-09 11:27:38
|
|
Homeslice
Score: 5.5
1on1 with a 6-12 default player count? This is a bit subtle, but WTF? I am guessing nowadays people use the 1on1 prefix for the fun of it? That prefix needed to be removed (or kept, really, as the player load needed to be 1-2. The map is that small).
Nice atmosphere otherwise. The falling snow doesn't affect flow that much (and flow is good), despite it blinding the view. Terrain is nicer than those that the n00bs make, that's for sure. Decent for a *small* map.
2004-09-22 16:31:58
|
|
T2A`
Score: 5.0
Cool! A 1on1 map with a 6-12 default player count! Looks pretty good, but gameplay basically waters down to "Who's best with the Shock Rifle and/or Lightning Gun?"
2004-09-22 15:27:52
|
|
Pointblank
Author
Thanks for review.
Yes i am related to Foulman.
But for my first go at making a terrain map, its not to bad.
I know theres lots of flaws,and maybe a little more time working on the lighting and meshing of this map would have been wise.
2004-09-22 11:04:54
| |
To add a comment, you need to login.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
