Quote from MillenniumArmy
It is true that many people aren't finishing their maps whether it be because of lack of motivation or patience, thus this leads to the inevitable frustration where we don't see many maps completed. But the thing is, what can you do about it? Mapping is a hobby afterall but in the end we, as starcraft players, want new maps to play on. We don't want to play some of the shit we see on battle.net; we want quality maps from quality map makers. This whole issue is more like a mutual agreement; "I make a map, you make a map, we all have fun." It's like we're all members of an isolated village somewhere in the mountains; in order for us to survive, we all have to do something.
Sorry Tux, but I think you are a bit too serious with your mapping, SC mapping is a hobby, after all.
Ah! So we get to the key issue at last! Took long enough.
No thanks to devilesk, of course.
Therein is the dilemma I'm trying to address: Clearly, to finish maps, you have to acknowledge their 'not fun' aspect and find a way to push through it. Or in other words, you're really gonna need a specific reason as your source of motivation; not just wishy-washy "for fun". Which means that, inevitably, most maps end up being abandoned because the author's "for fun" conditions stop being fulfilled about half way into the map.
However, now we get to the heart of the matter: SHOULD we even do that? I mean, now that it's clear what needs to be done to finish a
real map (not just your standard bnet junk, I mean to say), here's the problem then:
- Bnet doesn't care about them 80% of the time.
- Blizzard doesn't care about them 100% of the time.
- The UMS community isn't what it used to be.
- SC is over a decade old; it's game engine is outdated many times over (for the purposes of map making, I mean; gameplay is still viable, of course).
- We get to put up with people like devilesk still around for no real reason.
So... is it worth making decent maps at all, really? Again, it's clear we have to find a consistent way to take them seriously to get them finished. But what intrinsic reason is there
to take them seriously?
That's the question I'm pondering.
For me, with AG, I think of it as something I want to have that can actually be played. My logic is that if I can do that correctly even once, then I'll be able to duplicate it, and thus have learned the key to successful gameplay. That's in part my goal for later: So I have an acute idea on how to make
real games. I do in fact intend to make an actual game. But not before I'm certain I have a good idea as to how.
My situation is the exception here, though. For the purposes of a "for fun" hobby, I've begun to see that there's almost
no reason to take maps seriously, really. And thus, knowing that it then becomes highly unlikely to expect reliable map completion, there's almost no reason to even bother. Except perhaps with trivial maps (which are the only ones bnet ever seems to recognize, anyway).
Discuss.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 29 2008, 10:13 pm by Tuxedo-Templar.
None.