Ya, sure, the idea is pretty cool, atleast it was a year or so ago when cat n' mouse first came out. Then Sandbox came out and opened up more ideas to do cat n' mouse. I am just saying that a knock off shouldn't be featured. Same thing happened a bit ago where some idiot remade blackout, and called it Blockout or something. If it plays well then ya good for you, but a map shouldn't be featured because it "plays well". Is this what forging has come down to, just copying someone else or making an old map map better? I would think (and don't get me wrong, many wonderful ideas have emerged) that with sandbox there would be many more creative and original ideas out there, not just "remakes". Especially to be featured. Oh and that's just "my personal opinion", sorry if I didn't make that clear.
You make a valid point. I too think that remakes, in order to really stand out, have to go above and beyond just making it a remake. Now as for "playing well", I would have to disagree. I think that it is crucial for a map to play well in order for it to be good. I might have misunderstood your use of "plays well", but this is how I am taking it (correct me if i am wrong). If a map is just really good looking, but not fun to play on, does that really deserve to be noticed as much as the other way around? I have made plenty of fun, interesting and weird games (by weird I mean the settings) that play great, but the map doesn't look all that good. A lot of people overlook the gameplay on it and just say that it sucks because it doesn't look great. I'm not asking you, but in general is that just? Is that the way it should be?
Oh, I suppose you misunderstood, or I wasn't clear enough. Yes, gameplay is pretty vital to the success of that map, but that shouldn't be the only reason to feature a map. I was referring to the Blockout remake when I made that comment, and other remakes as well.
Oh, okay. Yeah I figured I might have misunderstood you. Like I said though, I think gameplay should be above aesthetics, but not to where it is 100/0 ratio. I think aesthetics are also needed in Foundry/Sandbox maps as well. I do think aesthetics can be a bit overrated though, in certain cases. I think a lot of times, aesthetics are why you build a map. You build your map around aesthetics, and then gameplay/gametype come after. But in the end gameplay is what matters, at least in my opinion. I don't know. I think we both make good points.
Ya I would have to agree with you where gameplay is much more important but also a good map must be nice to look at as well. Once we figured out each other, I think we are both at the same agreement.
This. Everybody has their opinions, and within reason, its okay to share them. As brought up before, this gametype is a lot about taste. I for one think this minigame is incredibly addicting, and to some, this is the perfect feature. Respect is the middle line, criticism is alright as long as its balanced on the string.
I've never played this map, but.... Could there be a revamp of the selecting of featured maps in the future? Not saying I oppose the current system, just when I look on these threads now, it seems people dislike the featured maps.
Take the percentage of each voting category for every map, plot it over time, and then come back to me on that front. Could be an interesting set of statistics.
Everybody's tastes are different I do think that this should be featured while yes there are many great other things out there this was fairly original somewhat addictive and very well forged. Kudos my friend.
I can see now why minigames are not featured on FH very often. They just require too specific a set of tastes for the majority of people to like. I like this. It's the perfect description: "Phone is on hold too. Fairly original. Somewhat addictive. Very well forged." I suppose then that any game using Infection as the base gametype with the zombies in vehicles that have to splatter the humans is a blatant rip off of Cat n' Mouse. Because obviously a game having the zombies in prowlers, the humans on foot, blocks as cover that disappear as the game progresses, firebomb grenades, and teleporters in an circular enclosed arena without any immovable cover or obstacles isn't straying far enough from the original concept to be called an original and creative game of its own. Considering this, there are very very few minigames that can be created nowadays without borrowing any gameplay mechanics, purposefully or accidentally, from any game that has ever been created before.
I wouldn't say the outlook for mini games is that grim, far from it, but you raise a valid point. Mini games are fundamentally fun, and Halo has its own unique charm in this regard, so we feel it's important to give them the focus they deserve. It'd be easy to feature slayer maps from now until the end of time, and they'd get a pretty good - if standard - reception. But that wouldn't further any of us as designers or players, nor support the large proportion of forgers who strive to create something a little further from the norm.
Your explanation is much better than mine. I suppose I was emotionally swayed at the time towards anger and extremes. The most basic point of my second paragraph still stands, however. Unfortunately, after all this time, there are very little discoveries in Halo that can lead to new and creative minigames. Ghost merging, despite how amazing it is, cannot be turned into an original minigame idea. One of the last discoveries I've seen turned into a new and original minigame was the elevator using portable grav lifts and column damaged's, which, quite obviously led to Blast Off and the Gravitator. A less convoluted explanation of my point would be this: As the Halo community progresses, there are fewer and fewer new gameplay mechanics being discovered. Completely original minigames generally require these to be called original, otherwise, they are just old ideas being used in different combinations with each other and in new ways from the originals.
I played this a while before it got featured, and, no offense, but i'm surprised it got featured. it was fun for a few rounds, but quickly became boring and no one wanted to play it. i think you should add more of a twist to it, but that's just my opinion
Did you play the first or the second version. The first had five rounds for some reason, and it did become boring before the end of the game. The second has three rounds, and the game ends before people get bored of it. And yes, I wanted to add more of a twist to it, but nothing I tested (see original post) worked very well. The released model of the game worked and played better than any of my other versions (10 or so); if it didn't, I wouldn't have released it. Thanks for actually saying something more than that it isn't your favourite game and suggesting something to make it better.
I saw this map a while back... and sorry sotha, but I don't really think this is deserving of a feature. Theres not much explanation someone can give to say why it is good or bad. There's just no WOW feature that most featured maps have. I feel like anyone could make something like this. However, that new map I saw you working on with the ramp and boxes and prowler, could be promising, let me know how that turns out.