SC2Mapster

Quote from Pr0nogo: Go

I have done every part of a 'high-end' custom content release - scriptwriting, voice acting, graphic and sound design, music production, mapmaking, modding, characterisation, the list goes on. I have useful experience in these fields

What have you done? What makes you an expert? You obviously think you are better than most people and it obviously makes you feel good talking about other people's work that is "lesser" than yours. You know what this reminds me of - after someone has given a talk at a conference and opens the floor for questions, and then you get that person (usually a male) who wants everyone to know (including his own ego) that he is better than the person giving the talk by talking about how his own work and how bad he thinks of theirs. Yes you offer constructive criticism, but things like saying that you have voice acted for many years does nothing but put the person down and build your own ego. Why does the campaign creator care if you have voice acted for many years? And saying that it sounds like a Microsoft Sam robot - how does that help?

Also, just in general, people that make campaigns often spend a lot of time deciding what to put into their maps and what to focus on. Comments like why didn't they include something are unfair in my opinion. You should focus on how they can make the things they did do better.

Was good to look at as I am just starting out with modding SC2. But as other comments have suggested I took it with a grain of salt as design is very subjective. Either way thanks for the video.

Quote from Forge_User_87697641: Go

@OutsiderXE: Go

It's still quite possible to improve upon everything that I point out in the video. But yes, I do try to make sure that people know that it's not an attack on their project, but that I'm simply using their project as a vehicle to explain my points and help educate others.

@OutsiderXE: Go

If you plan on focusing on writing and executing a well-constructed story, there will be lots of dialogue and lengthy cinematic experiences. That just comes with the territory. They wouldn't complain about it if Blizzard did it, so if you can produce a well-choreographed cinematic that explores a portion of your story in such a manner that it sheds more light on it for your players, there's no reason to not take that opportunity and run with it. It ultimately comes down to what kind of focus you have as a developer. I'm of mind that all three disciplines, story, gameplay, and aesthetic, should all be equally considered during the developmental phases of a project and should all be of comparable quality.

@OutsiderXE: Go

While 'codex' items aren't a bad idea for non-critical story elements, anything you can offer players through text can be better presented through a cinematic (or a briefing, in the case of SC:BW). The only reason you'd need to include prologue/epilogue text, as you referred to it as, is if you're offering a recap to refresh players in between missions - and even then, an argument can be made that attentive players won't need it, thus encouraging inattentive ones to pay more heed to the dialogue and the story. Still, I understand why so many people believe that text has merits. It's one of the reasons I spent so much time explaining why it's better to show than to tell.

@OutsiderXE: Go

In the future I'll play through the reference material to completion in order to better encapsulate my points without being distracted. I had a lot of commentary on my mind and was only able to select a few choice bits. I'll likely take some of your suggestions for the next episode, to help streamline its efficacy as an educational tool.

@OutsiderXE: Go

Sending the creator the longer video is an interesting option. I'm thinking about having a 'long-form' live recording where I explain in detail what I mean (in the same style as the single video that's up for Vortex of the Void), and releasing it to the public alongside a shorter, more condensed video that offers the same points with more brevity for those who are less interested in the finer details. That seems to run counter to my original 'in-depth' approach, but I think it'll offer something for every kind of viewer, which will help teach them regardless of which video they choose to watch.

@OutsiderXE: Go

I appreciate both the praise and the suggestions! I'll definitely be working towards the next video very soon, so hopefully you'll see more in the coming weeks and months. I'll post here when there is an update. Thanks for your interest in both the community and the series itself!

@StripyTail: Go

I specifically chose Vortex of the Void because it seemed like a stable, final version of a project so that I wouldn't be spending all this time explaining the positives and negatives of a map or series of maps that could potentially be updated to fix several flaws (or even introduce new ones). Additionally, I explicitly stated early on in the video that I was attempting to make this series a departure from my normal, caustic commentary in order to explain in an educational manner what the objective good and objective bad of the reference material actually is. The latter half of your paragraph here is difficult to understand, so maybe you can reword it. What do you mean that I can 'do more than just talk'? And how have I demonstrated an inability to tell the difference between good and bad critique? My ultimate goal is to use this video series to improve both my ability as an entertainer and the overall ability of the community to produce quality content.

@StripyTail: Go

If anything, the goal of these videos is actually to get people more excited for custom content, because the better the projects are, the more enjoyable they will be to all kinds of players. Hopefully, once I iron out exactly how to produce this kind of content, the videos won't run any risk of turning people off to the scene, as that was not my intention at all. I simply wanted to start discussions regarding the steady improvement of custom campaigns (and other custom content) from the ground up, through design philosophies.

@MaskedImposter: Go

I mention this above but my 'hierarchy of importance' would actually involve placing all three disciplines - story, gameplay, and aesthetic - dead even with one another. They are all equally important, as they all immerse the player in the overall experience and they all lend to the objective quality of the project as a whole. Each individual discipline might have more important focuses, such as ironing out the main premise of a story before handling the smaller details or planning out the flow of a mission's gameplay before testing comparatively minute tasks like difficulty scaling, but the holistic focus of your project should be to create as close to a perfect balance of quality between all three disciplines as possible, so as to make your project more consistent (and thus, more immersive).

@MaskedImposter: Go

One of the focuses of the developmental stage of any project is figuring out an overarching plan for how you will go about creating the characters, the story, the maps, and any additional mechanics (new units, new abilities, etc.). Maybe coming up with a more concrete plan would help you out?

Thanks everyone for your interest. I'll do my best to deliver a more cogent video next time around!

It's dangerous to move down this path due to the fragility of the SC2 modding community. The complexity involved in with the SC2 editor makes it a barrier to entry for aspiring mapmakers on its own merits. Add a perception of community nitpickiness (at best) and contempt (at worst) and the mapmaker will ask 'why the hell would I want to make a map only to be drawn and quartered for my trouble?'

There should be only one focus in any map making endeavor and that's really whether or not a person(s) enjoys the experience of playing the end product. I'd like to see a renaissance of mapmaking for SC2 the way we saw it for SC1. The people here, at SC2 Mapster, are among the vanguards for this. Will you welcome aspiring mapmakers with open arms? Or will you pick the 'flaws' as you perceive them to death?

If someone actually puts out a single player experience, that should be cherished as Blizzard primarily supports the multi-player components, and advocates creation of maps akin to tablet games. It's like cartoons today. Back when I was growing up we had cool story driven cartoons like Transformers and the Real Ghostbusters. These days you have Dora the Explorer and SpongeBob. The SC community is steered much in the same direction. A devolving sense of gameplay, because that's what is placed in front of people. Multi-player maps like tower defense and hero wars with the occasional single player thrown into the mix by some enterprising map maker.

So when someone does come along and makes a single player experience, embrace it, cherish it. The more people who feel welcome, the more people will come. And maybe, over the course of a short bit of time, we can create a real community out of the efforts.

Your "Philosophy" title aside, your video is little else but a series of yawns, nit-picking, racial slurs ("Xel'Nigger crystals"), derogatory insults ("Haha, it's really hard to save face," "That was pretty dumb", "We got a dumb, gay thing happening at our base", "This is pretty lame", "That's pretty silly") and half-finished arguments ("It doesn't look like the map-maker really understand...," and then nothing). The idea that you improve a community by taking someone else's work and picking it apart in a public video strikes me as... strange.

How about making a tutorial? Your own campaign? Vortex of the Void is a bold piece of work; a stunning achievement in a scene sorely lacking in stunning achievements. What did you expect reactions to this video would be? Gratitude? You present yourself as an authority on the subject of custom campaigns. No, DudkiSC2 is an authority.

Quote from Pr0nogo: Go

As for being like Jayborino, there's almost no chance of that, as he has far lower standards than I do and doesn't seem as interested in cultivating a community that produces high quality content.

Jayborino is a champion of this community. More than anyone else, he has helped us spread the word about the existence of our work. Despite not being a map-maker himself, he understands how much goes into making a map, and knows that harsh criticism is counter-productive.

Jayborino's standards aren't low. To say that is to show how little about his work you know. Your standards, on the other hand, are ridiculously high. People make these things on their free time. Give them some slack.

"The best way to criticize a movie is to make another movie," Jean-Luc Godard said. I wonder, how good would your campaign be? There are handful of people on this forum with the same high standards as you. They work and work on their projects and don't release them; they're the greatest things you'll never get to play.

Jayborino's been going at it for a while, and I don't see him stopping any time soon. I don't predict a long life for your series. Jayborino's videos will continue because they are fueled by enthusiasm, and yours will not because they are fueled by what comes of as mild annoyance, disguised as serious criticism.

Even more, the people you criticize are the same people that make up your audience, which is an... interesting business model. Such an approach might work in academia, which you seem to aspire to. But map-makers are first and foremost entertainers.

That being said, feel free to play my campaigns.

i have high standards and agree with most of critique but that perfectionism is also preventing me from finishing any project. I invest a lot of time to learn editor and know the most of things (good data/moderate trigger and terrain understanding). My ideas works out amazing in my test maps. But then i just estimate time i need to assemble that pieces together and do the rest of required work with the same level of quality. It's just too much for one person, especialy considering that it's just our hobby.

Maybe EivindL's maps lack some data editing and default abilities look kind of boring (for my high standards), but still i am imressed how well he managed to utilize default campaign stuff to create such diversified gameplay in his maps. For example that boss fights when locusts provide vision to a siege tank and generators that should be triggered in a timely manner to deal damage, or that Corelia defence sequence. I think that descisions emphasising that he is pretty good particularly in game design, though he could be realy bad with unit editing.

But again, in my opinion, sc2 need this type of people for they can slowly move the scene forward with their average quality content (again i mean it realy good for a hobbyst. I just imagine the time invested in those terrains XD). In opposite to myself, sitting on a bunch of realy complex high quality data assets that got broken every next big patch and gives nothing but a headache to me.

Shame on me glory to our campaign makers! :D

Quote from abvdzh: Go

Maybe EivindL's maps lack some data editing and default abilities look kind of boring (for my high standards), but still i am imressed how well he managed to utilize default campaign stuff to create such diversified gameplay in his maps. For example that boss fights when locusts provide vision to a siege tank

Interesting you should mention that. The data editor is indeed my weakest area. Because I didn't know how to create dodgeable missiles (practically a requirements for boss fights), I came up with the locust idea to compensate. So many good ideas appear when you realized you've painted yourself into a corner.

You should try some time to create a grid floor with vents which releasing air streams and cause hero to flail, while being immobilised (like phoenix ability).

To be incredibly narcissistic and quote myself, you two just demonstrated this perfectly:

Quote from JayborinoPlays: Go

Further, many mapmakers are simply stronger in some aspects over others and there's nothing wrong with being accepting of that if the campaign is still really fun to play. You seem to stick to the tenant that a map is not fun unless it is strong in every category. This is fine as a personal standard you hold for what you like to play, but is certainly not applicable to most players.

For my next campaign, I intend to involve other people more, making it more of a team effort.

Quote from EivindL: Go

For my next campaign, I intend to involve other people more, making it more of a team effort.

That would be good, simply because the editor was designed for it.

Something I think that gets overlooked in this kind of discussion is the tradeoffs that must be made. Simply put, Good Fast Cheap: Choose 2, applies here. Thus if we want quality, we must accept it will be slow coming. Also a team is basically mandatory, because there exist very few people who are gifted enough to be good at game design, good at artistic work and good at logic/programming. In my personal case, I'm the engineer, I do 0 game design, I work with a designer and just implement and give some feedback.

Many people look at the different data tabs, and the different modules and are of that attitude "Why can't it all be in triggers???". Whereas someone like me looks at and thinks "Sweet, 5 people can work on the same map AT THE SAME TIME".

makes me wonder if he violated rule 4 http://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/player-zone/map-review/9138-notice-minimum-review-requirements/#p1

anyway, I am I agree with the majority of responses to this thread. that's my 2 cents anyway.

@joey101d: Go

I think rule #4 can apply here when do we move to lock and shot down this tread?