I first thought there were only crappy remakes, but got surprised there are some really nice dust-like maps too, and think it's a good point to add them in the page, to show all those fake mappers what really means a "map" ...
Sheesh! Why is dust so popular for crap remakes? I don't understand it!
I already wondered myself, and after gathered those urls, read some articles, dozens of forums topics about "mappers" who are presenting "the" remake of dust, I concluded that :
_most maps use the name (dust) and the look (the textures) because of its popularity (they litteraly do "remakes", I mean something with the same cover, showed the same way, but nothing original inside the box),
_as almost nobody used the gameplay of dust, the gameplay itself is not an important factor (for the mappers I mean),
but_the problem is that dust is mainly popular especially because of its gameplay, and most remakes mappers simply didn't understand that point, and are clearly
nubs who didn't even understand the basics and really should STFU (confirmed by the lack of details, originality, gameplay, well, everything in their "maps").
dust is shining for those players/mappers, they are so far from anything, so far from the idea of dignity, from originality, from pride etc, that they are just trying to gather this light, put themselves between this light and the players, to try to exist by themselves, while they cannot because they are totally transparent, they are nothing but idiots who think it just needs to add "dust" in their map name to become ... somebody, but they totally missed the point ...