It may not be word for word, but I feel this statement you made conveys the same meaning as what he said. Polish. lol. Reminds me of that game school commercial where they talk about "tightening up the graphics on level 3." No. We're doing this to help the community and to help out the people who make good maps by giving feedback from a team of people who have actually played on the map. Not to mention all the bumps. And we're not asserting any authority whatsoever, we're just having fun and helping people out. I don't know how your map came to be reviewed, but apparently we need to notify and ask permission of the map creator in order to review maps now. Thank you, this is a newly formed group and we're still working out the kinks. Now I agree that they should have left originality out when reviewing this map. It had little to no place in the review process of this map. They should have left comments that had no affect on the score about how remakes are un-original and over done. But still, this could have been handled much better and didn't need to be so negative. I think everyone here needs to stop being so defensive and step back and look at this from a larger perspective. Both of you have points in which you are right. Both of you have points in which you are wrong. Just take it for what it is and move on. This is becoming pointless. AGREED.
This has gotten seriously off the topic of how the map plays and legitimate constructive criticism on what can be modified or not. Knock it off. If you guys still want to continue to ***** at each other, use the PM. All this does is bump the newer maps down the page.
Lol! First of all, let me congratulate everybody in this thread on their amazing ability to type long, (mostly) well thought out arguments. Secondly, let me chide you on being so very, very forum-ish. The anonymity-based overzealous defensiveness disgusts me (Neverless, you've been behaving better). Now, I'll throw my two cents in. First off, the Furious Review is a select group of folks who have shown a penchant for understanding the qualities of a good map. They often have very nice maps themselves and they've been through the rigmarole of posting here. We are certainly not professionals, but we do have a great deal of collective knowledge, particularly in the realm of what has been done before. We're here mostly for the community, aiming to point out exceptional maps that help move forging forward (or thats' how I think of it). Secondarily, we give criticism to the map-makers which will, hopefully, help them in the future - either on the reviewed map or their future maps. I see no viable reason to attack them for what they've done here. Now, on to your map. I have not played or even seen it yet, but I will DL and let you know what I think. But it's only because of this long thread. I saw the map in the forums a while back and passed it over because I didn't see anything special. I realize you're going for the MLG vibe, but the problem is: there are probably better ones out there, even ones which fulfill the criteria you've listed. MLG subscribes to a very strict (and IMO, boring) set of standards, which limits the maps created for the gametype. But what it all comes down to for me is fun. This is a game, here. I'd rather play a messy map that keeps me smiling than a "99.9999" polished piece of the same 'ol same 'ol. BTW, 99.9999% means that you're number 1 in a random sample of 1,000,000 map variants. I hate hyperbole, lol. But, I'll let you know what I actually think once I get a chance to look at the map. I fully expect you to refute every negative comment when it comes. (There'll be positive ones, too. I promise.)
All of that is fine. I'm sure that the vast majority of you are nice people whose intentions fit roughly around those you've explained. I've recently seen a fair few posts by other member of the Furious Review team which seemed fine to me. However, the first two members who i met were in this thread, and both of them not only rated my map unfairly (based on irrelevant and skewed criteria) but they also were persistent in their claims (once i had explained why they were unfair) and initiated an exchange of harsh words. It is these sorts of people who let the Furious review team down as far as i'm concerned. The map in question is not set up as an MLG map. Although, i can understand the confusion, because i have also made an MLG version which i believe is also linked in the OP. This will make me sound bad, but i truly do not think i've played a map that is any more clean/neat/tidy than Sanctum (or MLG Sanctum). Please show me a map which you have found that is better in this respect. I have seen a few maps as good in terms of neatness such as Metalock and a few of ash55's maps (which were underpromoted) but not many others. Yes, this was an exaggeration but it shows how strongly i feel that this map triumphs over the vast majority of other maps for its neatness. I did not say that this map was better on the whole than 99.9999% of other maps either. This seems to be a misunderstanding. I look forward to a fair, unbiased review, based off appropriate criteria. Thanks for downloading.
You ask for it, so here are two maps that are wonderful aesthetically. Exacted Unchained I am not saying yours isn't aesthetically please, but to say it is better than 99.999% of the maps, is a little unrealistic. If you are referring to all maps at Bungie, then, you may be right, but most of the maps on Forge Hub are very neat and executed to a "T." I have it queued.
I just stumbled upon this discussion, and although it's off topic, I'd like to add my two cents, because my name has been mentioned more than once already. First, let me quote the FAQ on my Furious Review page: Wow, it's almost like I anticipated this type of thing. Seriously though, everyone has their own opinions. Be respectful of everyone's right to disagree with you. You guys have been doing that so far, for the most part. There's no reason to insult people. In fact, if you read the rules, you will see: Please be respectful of each other on the forums, no matter how much you disagree. Also, the criteria that one person uses to judge a map is a non-issue. Symmetrical vs. asymmetrical, original vs. remake. You can't tell someone that the reason for their opinion is invalid. Opinions don't work like that. For example, I love the Ghost. I'm much more likely to enjoy a map if there is a Ghost on it. But you can't get mad at me for rating a map higher because of the Ghost, or for saying that a map scored lower because there was no Ghost when I thought there should be one. Lol, I'm a big boy, I can take it. But everyone needs to remember that they are responsible for their own actions. You have great wisdom. For the record, we don't go around pretending to know everything about what makes a good map. We don't try to gang up on people or influence the community into downloading one person's map over someone else's. We download and play maps, and then write up our opinions. We do it to help the community find good maps. We do it to provide valuable feedback to the authors of the maps. We do it to have fun. We will continue to review and rate maps according to our own personal criteria. Members of the community can choose to agree or disagree with our opinions. I encourage people to have discussions about what makes a good map, and about specific maps. But please remember that everyone has their own opinion, and it will differ from your own at some point. And please be respectful. _________________________________________________ And as a post-script, I did get a good laugh out of this:
I was not arguing over the reasons why he gave the map it's rating. I was not suggesting even that his opinion was wrong. The reasons that were given about how the maps gameplay could have been improved (re: Snipers/Sword/Top level) were perfectly valid opinions. I however, disagreed with them (except for the spawn time on the sniper - this is slightly too short IMO too, even though it is similar to Sanctuary's). I am surely allowed to defend my own view of the map aren't i? Not everyone defends their own creation just because they are biased. I felt insults were provoked by other posts in this thread which were directed at me. The insult was not intended to be personal (and i don't even think it is) but was rather to insult the process through which my maps (and others) are rated by certain members of the Furious Review team. This process (rating maps based on inappropriate criteria) is still very much flawed as far as i'm concerned. Haruki and i have exchanged PMs and i believe the issue is resolved. I do not view any members of the Furious Review team in a bad light. I think you're rating system is flawed and Haruki now agrees with me. You are a nice bunch of guys but my first encounter with a couple of you was a sour one. You're Ghost analogy is also a flawed analogy. I was trying to explain that maps should not be rated based on criteria that they do not fit into. e.g. You should not rate a Race Track for how well Team Slayer plays on it. You Should not rate a remake for how original it is. That is where the problem with the rating system lies. You cannot tell people that their opinion is wrong but i did not do this. I did, however, say that the rating system was flawed (done wrongly?) which it is. Opinion =/= Rating system. I would not be mad at you for "saying that a map scored lower because there was no Ghost when I thought there should be one," because you think that the map would be better if there was a ghost on it. That is fair. It is not fair should you encounter a Ghost-less map and lower its rating because it was not built to hold a Ghost even though you do not think that a Ghost would improve the map. This is similar to what has been done in this thread. I have no longer anything against the Furious Review team. You seem like a good group of people. I do think that you're current rating system is flawed quite a bit. You're opinions are perfectly fine but you're ratings are often unfair because of a rotten system. I respect that you are trying to improve the community and offer a free service that takes time out of your day. All i am saying is that you need to change your review system because the Furious Review team offer the vast majority of reviews here. Thus, they are unfair reviews, then the community suffers.
Fair enough. I disagree with some of that, but I respect your opinion. If you have a better system for the Furious Review, please feel free to express yourself here. In the meantime, we're gonna keep doing what we're doing.
This looks well-constructed, I just downloaded cause I loved Sanctuary a lot. Hopefully your map will bring me what I've been craving from Halo 2!
One of my favorite maps from Halo 2. I love this map. Very good job on it. Plays great in team slayer games and FFA. I'm sure it does great in the other gametypes, but that's all I have played on here.
I have been playing this map for a while and everyone I know has liked it. I think you should made a sequel to this map, because this is a map that I have enjoyed in the long run.
Hi. Um.. what? That's absolutely rediculous. If you really do mark maps down because they don't contain something you'd like to see (purely due to personal preferences) then why the hell are you reviewing maps in the first place? Please, please stop reviewing maps until you've learned how to do it properly. Thanks.
ash55, While you make a very valid comment on the subject of reviewing, why would you wait a little more than 3 weeks to offer your retort? I realize that you don't visit here often (I imagine your forum ninja duties are very time consuming over there), but having such a long span between the original heated debate and now just comes across as picking at old wounds. Anyway, this is a nicely made map, although I opted to keep Inertia on my HD over this one. I hope you guys continue to collaborate and generate very well-made maps.
Hi, I hadn't read the dates. This was only the second page and I recognised it as one of Superfeigns maps and read the comments. It looked fairly recent. I'm not attacking him, I'm sincerely asking him to rethink what makes a good review. How will he ever know what makes a good map if he can't even nail the review part also? The very direct manner is an attempt to highlight how serious I am. If you plan to review something, you should review it based on its individual merits and intent, its target market etc. You shouldn't review something based on whether you wake up thinking "I want to play a Foundry map with a Ghost on it today!". I've made 1 map with Feign before (so this post may appear to be biased) but honetly I couldn't care less whether Furious voted it a 1/10 for very valid reasons, that bolded part of his post was just flat-out disagreeable (and the only part I was interested in discussing). For example, assume I can't get enough of the Sniper Rifle, and I decide to review a map that is intended for Swords games, or Zombies etc. In this analogy, I would mark said map a 1/10 because I couldn't find a single Sniper Rifle. I tell the creator that he can't get mad at me. It is perfectly reasonable that "a map scored lower because there was no [Sniper Rifle] when I thought there should be one.". But that's just the thing, it's not. The point of a review is to ignore any personal wishes. You take a look at the map's category and purpose, and then decide how successful that purpose was realised ultimately. You don't look at a map that is intended for 2v2 infantry/competitive play and then mark it down because it doesn't have a vehicle. The whole argument just seems rediculous and defeats the point of having reviews in the first place.
I agree with you completely. Enjoyment of a map is a pretty difficult criteria to use in a review. For the most part it's personal opinion, and unless the map is broken or the gametype for it is horribly lopsided, it shouldn't factor too heavily into an 'official' review. I think the misconception from the beginning of the entire debate was that (as to my knowledge), we never were an 'official review team'. This was something that at its fundamental level was just an excuse for a bunch of guys to play some custom games with maps that piqued our interest and then respond to the mapmaker with some relative constructive criticism in a review-type form. Certainly things in this case got a little carried away; personal opinions weighed in too heavily, exchanges became heated, and perceived slights were made, but I think everyone came away from this gaining knowledge on how to approach things of this sort in the future. Anyway, enough space has been taken up in this thread that hasn't really dealt with the actual play of the map, so I'll end with the comment that Superfeign is obviously a talented Forger judging by this map and Inertia, and I hope you both will continue to supply us with quality stuff.
This map is extremely balanced and well laid out- it has the same feel of sanctuary, but other, better things in my perspective were added, although not as seemingly different from the pics, this map deserves an MLG version, and a high-TEN! nice job on this one!