Chartres
#1 posted by
pushplay on 2003/10/22 16:45:23
Ouch. So much effort. So little frame rate. So little gameplay. What a waste.
Well, ...
#2 posted by Q-Fraggel on 2003/10/23 06:56:56
I don't really think it's supposed to be a playable map ;)
Hmm
#3 posted by
nonentity on 2003/10/23 09:51:51
"Hey look Ma, I can clone the same arch 40 times over!"
Noentity
#4 posted by
nitin on 2003/10/23 09:53:36
it's based off a real building which obviously is going to have the same arches repeated over.
Nitin
#5 posted by
nonentity on 2003/10/23 10:12:10
I know, my point was more about the lack of technical skill required (I know some was required, but still).
I fail to see the point in making an exact copy of a real building anyway. Would it not be more worthwhile to build something inspired by the real place, but that is more suited to being a game level?
Yes
#6 posted by
nitin on 2003/10/23 10:19:01
but I think this was one of those how much can I push the engine before it wont compile efforts? Like elek's q1 cathedral, although that was probably more playable.
Having said that, I do think maps more like dubneoc are better examples of engine pushing because they are at least original and have a layout.
#7 posted by Scampie on 2003/10/23 17:05:20
I fail to see why 'Chartres' is reviewed as a map at LvL and why it's a 'must have map'. It was an interesting test of mapper's abilities and the engine's limits, but it's basically a flat box map with pretty walls. I'm at least glad it was the third review in the list, so a decent map like noq3dm5 can get some attention.
Noq3dm5
#8 posted by
pushplay on 2003/10/23 17:11:59
Yeah, I thought that map had better texturing than it was given credit for.
Chartres
#9 posted by qkennyq on 2004/05/17 22:33:45
its crap..