If you want to elevate the craft of mapping, there's also an alternative to your criticism series. Why not build something and then do a series explaining your choices? If you can do that without denigrating others, then I guarantee we'd all find it much more interesting than this. It doesn't have to be big—just make something. I don't say this to in a "well, let's see you do better" manner—I honestly think it's a better approach for you.
This could definitely make for a good video.
I also third the idea that it may be best to ask the campaign creators before using them as examples.
Again feel free to use any of my stuff. I recently started the campaign "Mapsters" which you can find on here, which is probably the only thing relevant from what I think you're interested in commenting on that I've made. But as you've alluded to with my other map, nothing I make should be considered 100% serious. In fact it may be interesting to see your take on the Marauders campaign which is far from serious but very cool.
In my opinion constructive criticism can always be good, key word being constructive, which I think this is. It isn't just 'it sucks' or anything like that. Personally I find it can hurt initially, and usually I have to sleep on it before looking at it objectively. But a lot of times with enough suggestions it can result in a better map. I remember initially I was against the idea of shared income in Stukov and Pals, but the map turned out much better for it.
That being said, feel free to rip into anything I've made, though I think you're wanting to concentrate on single player campaigns (correct me if I'm wrong). I've only recently started releasing what I feel to be a good single player campaign (only 2 missions in so far). I know one weakness I have is terraining, but I just don't find terraining fun, so I'll likely never put much time into it beyond what I feel is necessary. I'm unlikely to go back and change stuff in a map (except in the case of serious bugs/etc), but it may influence me in the future.
Quote:
And you should want to fix every flaw.
And I don't completely agree with that. There can be beauty in flaws. Like the ballooning death animation of a duplicated goliath that makes me chuckle in Stukov and Pals, haha.
So I finished the video, it is pretty interesting with a lot of good points. I especially agree with the show don't tell philosophy and found your analogy of Raynor and the bar funny. Honestly, Narudek's campaign isn't strong in it's story, but I always felt it was really cool in its visuals, both units and terrain. Of course every part of making a mission has its costs (mostly time to produce) and benefits, and each person needs to decide where to put their time. Do you think Narudek's campaign would have been better with basic terrain and default SC2 units, but a better story? I don't know myself. Perhaps you could create a hierarchy of importance.
I find one of the difficulties of making an immersive story myself is that I'll have all these ideas in my head about the characters and where the story is going, that I can find it hard to figure out if I ever communicated this vision to the player. It seems impossible to figure this out without a fresh pair of eyes.
through the history of Narudek projects you can familiarize with the struggle to make such projects.
Where's that? Could be interesting. I don't know how he does the stuff he does! haha. I recently watched Jayborino's playthrough of marauders as well, and I'm jealous of that map maker too! I think I'm pretty good at the editor now, but it's funny how you can always find some work better than your own to look up to and go wow, haha.
Sounds interesting, though I'm a bit wary about the running time. Shows like extra credits get a lot of points across but episodes run no longer than 10 minutes. I've added your first episode to my watch later and hopefully I'll get around to watching the whole thing (perhaps in pieces) at some point. So yea, I would definitely recommend cutting the length down if possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This could definitely make for a good video.
I also third the idea that it may be best to ask the campaign creators before using them as examples.
Again feel free to use any of my stuff. I recently started the campaign "Mapsters" which you can find on here, which is probably the only thing relevant from what I think you're interested in commenting on that I've made. But as you've alluded to with my other map, nothing I make should be considered 100% serious. In fact it may be interesting to see your take on the Marauders campaign which is far from serious but very cool.
In my opinion constructive criticism can always be good, key word being constructive, which I think this is. It isn't just 'it sucks' or anything like that. Personally I find it can hurt initially, and usually I have to sleep on it before looking at it objectively. But a lot of times with enough suggestions it can result in a better map. I remember initially I was against the idea of shared income in Stukov and Pals, but the map turned out much better for it.
That being said, feel free to rip into anything I've made, though I think you're wanting to concentrate on single player campaigns (correct me if I'm wrong). I've only recently started releasing what I feel to be a good single player campaign (only 2 missions in so far). I know one weakness I have is terraining, but I just don't find terraining fun, so I'll likely never put much time into it beyond what I feel is necessary. I'm unlikely to go back and change stuff in a map (except in the case of serious bugs/etc), but it may influence me in the future.
And I don't completely agree with that. There can be beauty in flaws. Like the ballooning death animation of a duplicated goliath that makes me chuckle in Stukov and Pals, haha.
So I finished the video, it is pretty interesting with a lot of good points. I especially agree with the show don't tell philosophy and found your analogy of Raynor and the bar funny. Honestly, Narudek's campaign isn't strong in it's story, but I always felt it was really cool in its visuals, both units and terrain. Of course every part of making a mission has its costs (mostly time to produce) and benefits, and each person needs to decide where to put their time. Do you think Narudek's campaign would have been better with basic terrain and default SC2 units, but a better story? I don't know myself. Perhaps you could create a hierarchy of importance.
I find one of the difficulties of making an immersive story myself is that I'll have all these ideas in my head about the characters and where the story is going, that I can find it hard to figure out if I ever communicated this vision to the player. It seems impossible to figure this out without a fresh pair of eyes.
@wargirlwargirl: Go
Where's that? Could be interesting. I don't know how he does the stuff he does! haha. I recently watched Jayborino's playthrough of marauders as well, and I'm jealous of that map maker too! I think I'm pretty good at the editor now, but it's funny how you can always find some work better than your own to look up to and go wow, haha.
Sounds interesting, though I'm a bit wary about the running time. Shows like extra credits get a lot of points across but episodes run no longer than 10 minutes. I've added your first episode to my watch later and hopefully I'll get around to watching the whole thing (perhaps in pieces) at some point. So yea, I would definitely recommend cutting the length down if possible.