Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Silver
i could see realistic type stuff working for a attack and defend type map like avanti or a cp map like warpath, but then u run the rist of making it like dod
|
In DoD, running around corners at full speed and hopping around like a nut while holding down the trigger is a good tactic to use if your objective is death. In TFC, you hit whatever is in your crosshair no matter what you're doing, so jumping around like a nut is not a bad idea.
Anyway, realistic maps can be very fun to play as long as they're well made. Think of maps like casbah. Sure, it looks like it could exist in the real worlld, but it's not the greatest map in the world because it's extremely linear - there's only one or two ways to get into the enemy base, and even fewer ways to get out. Badlands, on the other hand, is an example of a realistic map. The middle of a canyon is a perfect place to hide a missile silo base, and military installations are often built symetrically (I'm not basing that on anything at all, it just makes sense).
A good place to look for realistic maps that play well is Counter-Strike. You may be thinking "yeah right, I'd like to see a place like de_dust in the real world." Maybe not, but what about cs_office? You'd be hard pressed to find a more realistic map that plays anywhere near as well as office does.
The conclusion? Realism should take a backseat to gameplay when creating a map. Only after a map's layout is perfected should the realistic touches be added. Changing the layout of a map to make it seem like it would actually serve a purpose in the world is a bad idea if it detracts from the gameplay.
If you're a mapper, keep that in mind. Most players are much more interested in how a map plays than how a map looks.