Map Packs

[Dr. HeatSync]

Not just "way back when", TF2 release maps for free that aren't made by the community, granted 90% have been made and then tweaked by devs when released into the main TF2, but others were made by the dev team.

Would you like to be they guy on TF2 blog that, for every well made community map, has to sift through at least 50 maps that were made by idiots? The guys at Valve have every choice of pricing their content for nothing, just as much as some other developers feel their efforts deserve some pay.

And I "have the right" not to buy it, and I won't because I find it fucking stupid. The way they limit the content available for more money makes for a much weaker experience just so they can pump out another game quicker.

If you find the business side of the industry 'fucking stupid' then by all means, vote with your wallet, more power to you. However to assume that a developer/publisher does nothing productive with the profits they gain is ridiculous. I don't see any 'limit' on games, some developers simply don't want their work tampered with and they themselves expand their game in a professional manner for a small fee.

I'd prefer to (and will) buy titles that have a solid game base, that is bought buy a community and that is good enough to last because people like it enough to put their own time into expanding on it, the community giving themselves what they want, not what they're told they want.

I wouldn't mind so much if they just sold map packs, but it's what they take away at the same time as giving you the option to pay money for them that makes the consumer suffer, it's wonderful from a business stand point, but as a customer it sucks.

Does a community really, really need to feel the need to modify a title such as Modern Warfare 2 to decide 'Oh yeah this is a great game'. Unfortunately give most of the community a word processor, Photoshop and an SDK and they'll ignore both planning packages and try to dive into the tools with no idea what they are doing. Do they know what makes a professionally designed level? There's only a handful who do.

Valve showcase it off for approval, they embrace the community, even if it means they can quietly ignore atrocities like that Mario Kart level or Pyro Rocket Arena, as it gives the community a good name (which, is funnily enough, done in the name of profit by making a bigger name for themselves and the community buys their next game). Blizzard have decided to monitor (and I believe charge a small fee) their community's uploads to ensure that the work is of a high enough quality, and then you have the ones that simply don't like having to deal with the hassle of rabid idiots and release professional map packs instead, charging a fee for the service they are providing.

Does this make sense now? Not every developer has to open up their title just because a rabid band of idiots couldn't have a play at level/game design. Also, you shouldn't limit this just to competitive multiplayer shooters. Would the intro for BioShock be any better if they decided you started off with the most powerful plasmid? No. Would TF2 be improved if Balve took advice from the munchkins mass debating over whether the Backburner should be nerfed? Of course not, because they are professionals, they can see where their community is right and wrong.

If that makes me ignorant then ignorance is fucking bliss.

Well bliss is always a good thing mate, just don't complain when someone plays Devils Advocate. I'm not completely against modding, but I feel that developers shouldn't have to make every single one of their games modifiable to satisfy the needs of us as PC gamers.

 

[DazZ.]

Not just "way back when", TF2 release maps for free that aren't made by the community, granted 90% have been made and then tweaked by devs when released into the main TF2, but others were made by the dev team.

Would you like to be they guy on TF2 blog that, for every well made community map, has to sift through at least 50 maps that were made by idiots?

Yes, I pretty much do anyway. Without shifting through shit you don't really notice how good some maps are.

If you find the business side of the industry 'fucking stupid' then by all means, vote with your wallet, more power to you. However to assume that a developer/publisher does nothing productive with the profits they gain is ridiculous. I don't see any 'limit' on games, some developers simply don't want their work tampered with and they themselves expand their game in a professional manner for a small fee.

As I said, from a business standpoint it's wonderful, but as a consumer it hurts the product for me which I find stupid so I won't buy it.

Does a community really, really need to feel the need to modify a title such as Modern Warfare 2 to decide 'Oh yeah this is a great game'.

Holy mother of fucking god yes, it's a state.

Unfortunately give most of the community a word processor, Photoshop and an SDK and they'll ignore both planning packages and try to dive into the tools with no idea what they are doing. Do they know what makes a professionally designed level? There's only a handful who do.

That's irrelevant, it's wonderful that people will have a look at the tools without knowing what to do, some will actually stick around and learn from their mistakes, others might see how difficult it is. Maps won't get onto a lot of servers without being playtested. Mostly by the people on custom map sites who are immensely critical and will happily play custom maps and give the author advise and rate the map so after a few it's clear whether the map is quality or not and it might improve if the author listens. This idea that everyone who plays mods needs to sift though all the bad ones to find anything good is bollocks, the people who are good at making content will happily sit though other peoples stuff and help them out with it, and it won't get rated high on a mod site until it's good.

Blizzard have decided to monitor (and I believe charge a small fee) their community's uploads to ensure that the work is of a high enough quality, and then you have the ones that simply don't like having to deal with the hassle of rabid idiots and release professional map packs instead, charging a fee for the service they are providing.

They don't monitor for map quality, only "offensive content". The way they charge is the map maker can choose whether or not to charge for their map. It's a step up from completely blocking out custom content to make money from maps, but I'm still uneasy about the idea. I wouldn't buy maps for the normal skirmish game, but things such as DotA that can be made then maybe.

Valve showcase it off for approval, they embrace the community, even if it means they can quietly ignore atrocities like that Mario Kart level or Pyro Rocket Arena, as it gives the community a good name (which, is funnily enough, done in the name of profit by making a bigger name for themselves and the community buys their next game).

Obviously that's done for profit, but the game actually lasts which is all I want. Not a shitty game brought out year after year.

Does this make sense now? Not every developer has to open up their title just because a rabid band of idiots couldn't have a play at level/game design.

Where did that not make sense to me? If I didn't think people were doing that I'd have nothing not to buy in my eyes.

Would TF2 be improved if Valve took advice from the munchkins mass debating over whether the Backburner should be nerfed? Of course not, because they are professionals, they can see where their community is right and wrong.

No, and they don't. What is your point?

Also, you shouldn't limit this just to competitive multiplayer shooters. Would the intro for BioShock be any better if they decided you started off with the most powerful plasmid?

No, I should, as these are my opinions. Multiplayer games are a much different type of game than single player, single player are about the experience and don't need to last as long, they don't need a community propping them up, I'd liken them to a movie and multiplayer games to a game like chess or football (in the way they work with rules etc not saying they're a sport). With a movie you don't need additional content, you have the story, that's fine you're done. They might bring out some bonus features on the DVD that fans want, again fine. But with a game like chess you want to be able to mix it up a bit, maybe make checkers from it or with football make nods and vods/wallball (or whatever other football games you created as a kid). The gameplay of the base game is what you I buy the game for, if that's good mods and other gametypes will fall into place. If that can't happen a game loses an incredible amount of potential to the point where it's not worth it for me.

Well bliss is always a good thing mate, just don't complain when someone plays Devils Advocate.

Why would I complain? I'll happily voice my thoughts.

I'm not completely against modding, but I feel that developers shouldn't have to make every single one of their games modifiable to satisfy the needs of us as PC gamers.

I don't claim to represent PC gamers as a whole, but I'm not the only one who thinks map packs are fucking stupid.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I see no reason to buy more maps for a game I already own when I could get a good game on Steam for the same price. Simples!

Here, here!

OT: I've never paid for a map pack ever. DLC packs which add something more, sure. But I'm not going to buy just maps.

 

[LandoCristo]

I've never bought map packs. Expansion packs, sure, bring on those new weapons and game-modes! I feel that DLC is letting developers get greedy and lazy. Except for Valve, that is.

It's fine as long as the developers use a little bit of sense when they implement them. Treyarch fails map packs forever with how they handled WaW on Xbox Live.

Let me explain: I purchased an Xbox, a gold membership, and CoD:WaW. For months I played that game no problem online, then Treyarch released map packs. They cost me money. No problem, you say, just don't go to those maps? Well, that doesn't work. In fact, they're forced onto the rotation. So, every other match, I'm kicked from the server for not buying Treyarch's map packs. Join another server, you say? Problem, Xbox Live doesn't care what server they throw a person on. I get put back into the same server four or five times in a row. If I'm exaggerating, it's because I lost count after five times of being kicked. Vote the maps down? Oh, why didn't I think of that? Oh, I did. The next map was also DLC. Kick for me.

Compare that to MW on the PC and the free maps I get?

Yeah, fuck Treyarch.

This happened to me too, except on PS3. Another reason I decided to give the finger to Activision in general, the CoD series in particular.

 

[Vrach]

Problem is, it fucks up the map cycling process.

This really. I was thinking of buying MW2 for a while, but the thought of paying 30 extra bucks just for stupid maps was ridiculous (among all the other technical BS I found out about the game ).

 

[Hateren47]

Why would I pay for something the modding community would create for me for free if the studio won't? No I don't by map packs I expect them to be free. And they usually are.

 

[Kukakkau]

Only map packs i was truly happy with paying for were the CoD:WaW map pack 2 and 3. Why? Awesome zombie levels - the nazi zombie mode in itself could make a full game if they expanded on it.

But I would love to see maps created by PC users being downloadable on the LIVE marketplace

 

[fix-the-spade]

No, don't normally buy them.

Usually they're an arbitrary method of banning user made maps. Especially on PC games (Modern Warfare 2...), usually user made maps are better as well. On consoles they're usually a rip off and I'd rather spend the money a new game, bike parts or even some beer.

I'd consider getting Bungie map packs as they're usually quite good, but Forge has killed that off effectively.

DLC on the other hand, is case by case. It's become the defacto replacement for expansion packs, so each one can only really be judged on merit.

 

[FamoFunk]

I've paid for L4D DLC on xbox 360, that pissed me off seeing as PC users get everything for L4D free and can Mod.

MW2 map packs cost £10.99 each om PS3, no way was I paying that so took them from a friends account

 

[Dr. HeatSync]

Yes, I pretty much do anyway. Without shifting through shit you don't really notice how good some maps are.

Well yes it is great that there are some creative people out there, and TF2 blog gives them the credit they deserve, but this doesn't mean every FPS has to do this exact thing.

Does a community really, really need to feel the need to modify a title such as Modern Warfare 2 to decide 'Oh yeah this is a great game'.

Holy mother of fucking god yes, it's a state.

My point with that is that if you need a modification to play a game, you aren't playing the game because you think it's great, you're playing a game because the game someone else created within it is great. Its how I ended up feeling about Warcraft 3. Some people have no problem with that and I guess its how Heroes of Newerth got started, but I want more substance.

Unfortunately give most of the community a word processor, Photoshop and an SDK and they'll ignore both planning packages and try to dive into the tools with no idea what they are doing. Do they know what makes a professionally designed level? There's only a handful who do.

That's irrelevant, it's wonderful that people will have a look at the tools without knowing what to do, some will actually stick around and learn from their mistakes, others might see how difficult it is. Maps won't get onto a lot of servers without being playtested. Mostly by the people on custom map sites who are immensely critical and will happily play custom maps and give the author advise and rate the map so after a few it's clear whether the map is quality or not and it might improve if the author listens. This idea that everyone who plays mods needs to sift though all the bad ones to find anything good is bollocks, the people who are good at making content will happily sit though other peoples stuff and help them out with it, and it won't get rated high on a mod site until it's good.

Well thats great then isn't it, a community that learns and advances in game design is always good. This is because the developer has decided from the start that their own game should be modifiable for this purpose. However, some developers just aren't into the idea of a community modding their work using resources they themselves generated, and some players just want to play the real game.

They don't monitor for map quality, only "offensive content". The way they charge is the map maker can choose whether or not to charge for their map. It's a step up from completely blocking out custom content to make money from maps, but I'm still uneasy about the idea. I wouldn't buy maps for the normal skirmish game, but things such as DotA that can be made then maybe.

Sorry, disregard what I've said about Starcraft 2. I was wrong.

Obviously that's done for profit, but the game actually lasts which is all I want. Not a shitty game brought out year after year.

I've played TF2 for a very long time (although now I'm tired of it) so I can agree with that.

No, and they don't. What is your point?

If you make a trip to steam forums' TF2 page, you may see a whole list of ideas, some good yes, but mostly quite undesirable. Valve have all of their own documents, how the game works, docs on the objective based gameplay, how characters should play and so on with a massive list of intricacies, so naturally some of the suggestions may severely unbalance the game they have crafted. They're not above trying out some ideas that appeal, but there are obviously going to be some things they have to say no to.

No, I should, as these are my opinions. Multiplayer games are a much different type of game than single player, single player are about the experience and don't need to last as long, they don't need a community propping them up, I'd liken them to a movie and multiplayer games to a game like chess or football (in the way they work with rules etc not saying they're a sport). With a movie you don't need additional content, you have the story, that's fine you're done. They might bring out some bonus features on the DVD that fans want, again fine. But with a game like chess you want to be able to mix it up a bit, maybe make checkers from it or with football make nods and vods/wallball (or whatever other football games you created as a kid). The gameplay of the base game is what you I buy the game for, if that's good mods and other gametypes will fall into place. If that can't happen a game loses an incredible amount of potential to the point where it's not worth it for me.

And just like how I feel that multiplayer is a bonus piece of content tied to a strong single player experience, I feel mods are a small bonus to the multiplayer. Personally, I don't mind a non-moddable game if it has an already good multiplayer aspect, but this mindset that mods are supposed to be standard I can't help but feel is an aggressive statement.

Yes, brilliant things have come from mods. TF2 is wonderful, but that does not mean that every multiplayer mode has to have a map editor and full blown SDK. Some developers don't feel like giving absolutely everything to a community; they want to give the experience they themselves have crafted and balanced. Let the innovations of user created content come from games that have been fully designed to stimulate community activity, not force it on games that didn't intend to have it. If the developers feel £10 is worth 5 maps, let their decision be their own fate. If they swim in money it means it works and if not maybe they'll work on getting the community involved.

I don't claim to represent PC gamers as a whole, but I'm not the only one who thinks map packs are fucking stupid.

You are right, there are many people who are against this. I think MW2's map packs are overpriced, but I can understand why they price their maps (although perhaps a little steeply here) instead of just handing them out for free. I personally don't mind paying for professionally designed maps that are fun to play.

 

[DazZ.]

I'm going to try and keep these quotes smaller, we're sucking up half the page.

If you make a trip to steam forums' TF2 page, you may see a whole list of ideas, some good yes, but mostly quite undesirable.

Oh god yes, these ideas are terrible (in theory, I obviously haven't tried them). I agree they shouldn't find their way into the main game, but I see no problem with the whiny people thinking that's the way they want to play being able to play the game their way. Until they realise what they've created and return to normal play.

Some developers don't feel like giving absolutely everything to a community; they want to give the experience they themselves have crafted and balanced. Let the innovations of user created content come from games that have been fully designed to stimulate community activity, not force it on games that didn't intend to have it.

And these innovation allowing games are the ones I will play, even if the Quake/UT era is over I'm sure there will be someone catering to my (what is possibly a) niche of letting the community play how they want. At the moment it's Valve feeding us, if they ever stop agreeing with that method I'm sure someone else will come along. I don't want a game that I can see things would be fun to do with, and not be able to create them.

And just like how I feel that multiplayer is a bonus piece of content tied to a strong single player experience, I feel mods are a small bonus to the multiplayer. Personally, I don't mind a non-moddable game if it has an already good multiplayer aspect, but this mindset that mods are supposed to be standard I can't help but feel is an aggressive statement.

This is where we differ then, I only really play multiplayer games. I play a few single player games here and there but rarely finish them because killing AI is magnificently boring to me. Playing real people is much more fun.

I like playing the game part of games, and improving at that, not playing the story. I think it's because I see the game as a game that I want to be able to do what I want with it.

I see the main game as like buying a football, there is a set game that comes with it and a few rules but if you want there is so many other things you can do with it. If the kicking of a ball isn't fun to you, you won't buy the ball or play any of the other games based around that kind of gameplay. If the ball was locked in a football field and came with a referee that won't let you do what you want with the ball, shouting at you whenever you picked it up, I wouldn't buy it.
That was a very poorly worded analogy but I think you get the idea.

I personally don't mind paying for professionally designed maps that are fun to play.

I'm very uneasy to the idea, but that's not what irritates me most. As I've said it's what they take away to allow themselves to sell these maps that I despise.

 

[Dr. HeatSync]

Oh god yes, these ideas are terrible (in theory, I obviously haven't tried them). I agree they shouldn't find their way into the main game, but I see no problem with the whiny people thinking that's the way they want to play being able to play the game their way. Until they realise what they've created and return to normal play.

There are good ideas in there that Valve pick and choose from, but most of the time you get something equal to giving the Sniper akimbo Uzis. Thats from someone who doesn't realise what that kind of power does and how drastically it can change his role.

And these innovation allowing games are the ones I will play, even if the Quake/UT era is over I'm sure there will be someone catering to my (what is possibly a) niche of letting the community play how they want. At the moment it's Valve feeding us, if they ever stop agreeing with that method I'm sure someone else will come along. I don't want a game that I can see things would be fun to do with, and not be able to create them.

It won't die out because it gives a developer a good reputation. Valve have provided solid games with the added bonus of modification. Unfortunately, mod implementation isn't as easy as one would like, because you have to release easy to use map editors/SDKs that a community member can learn to use. A lot of ideas come from mods, so I don't see them dying out anytime soon.

This is where we differ then, I only really play multiplayer games. I play a few single player games here and there but rarely finish them because killing AI is magnificently boring to me. Playing real people is much more fun.

I like playing the game part of games, and improving at that, not playing the story. I think it's because I see the game as a game that I want to be able to do what I want with it.

Well considering that I only play homebrew D&D (well actually, Savage Worlds) as opposed to the written campaigns I understand what you mean. Your analogy comes across perfectly fine. I will occasionally delve into mods, but I prefer to play the vanilla flavour.

I'm pretty strange, because I like a good single player game, I love competitive multiplayer, but dislike co-op. I think its because I suspend disbelief when its single player, but that suspension is broken when I know that someone else is playing. I don't know if that makes sense.

I'm very uneasy to the idea, but that's not what irritates me most. As I've said it's what they take away to allow themselves to sell these maps that I despise.

Well maybe a compromise will come up; mods and the SDK available for free, but the professional designers will charge a little for their map packs for existing and maybe modded game modes. Perhaps we can see the community development alongside the idea of profitable map packs.