Texture_Towers

no offense intended at all, but that took almost 30 hours?

I would call it Non_Texture_Towers

roughly yes. mainly because its had about 8 different designs. Lets just say it went though a whole lot of tweaking.

Next step is to add textures.

but its suppose to be aim_ag_texture map >_< the point is to only have dev texures. though i am experimenting to see if it would look good with textures

the first ag_texture map only had dev textures because the creator was too lazy to add them. The fact that this style of map has become popular annoys me greatly.

maybe to your surprise there are lots of people who just enjoy the non texture look. The reason? its simple and fun. At least that is my take on it. Sure, maybe the guy was lazy but, that's fine as long as people can enjoy it.

(im not trying to get in an argument if this is where its going >_<)

If you're going to make a map void of sexy detailed textures, then the very least you can do these days (at least in my opinion) is to make some sexier grid and trim textures and put a very strong emphasis on architecture and lighting.

I can actually see why people would find these maps fun, believe it or not. But I would never actually truely consider these maps complete, or worth it.

So by adding texture, the map would be LESS fun?

So if you convert the existing official maps, say, cs_office, into a dev texture map, it would be BETTER?

I just don't understand why dev textures are BETTER than detailed texturing.

Strider, I can see where your going with that, it isn't the best dev texture placements in the world and some of the architexture is meh. That I can easily agree with you with. But i've clocked in more time on this then I originally wanted to and so basically i'm sick of working on lol. I'm just gonna leave it as it is and start up a project. My next project is gonna use displacement so I am not going to be kinding anyone if I just have displaced dev textures all over the place.
Satchmo, I wouldn't say dev texture maps are bett
er then any other maps. Nor am I saying adding textures to map is less fun. I think dev textures are fun because you can focus more on the game then eye candy. That might be a bad way to put but it is hard to explain. It could also be that the games feel slightly more intense because the character models colors compared to the dev textures are opposites thus it is easier to spot each otehr faster. This does not mean I don't play office or dust once in awhile those maps are awesome maps no matter how you look at them.

Remember this is just my opinion. I can't speak for everyone. I just happen to enjoy dev texture maps and that's why I made one. I don't see why I am going though so much criticism about the map having no textures then I am about the maps design and such. Yes, I understand the map has not textures people! Even if I was to add textures, the way I designed the map, textures wouldn't look very good in the long run.

wow... i wrote alot! sorry i should have reread my post before i posted. Sorry for butchering the english language it is really early in the morning.

i like you.
I disagree with dev textured maps, but you defended their purpose with reason and patience unlike the majority of DEV texture mappers. ("WTF LOL THIS MAPP PWNS STFU TEXTOORS MAKE IT LAG LOLOLOLOLOL")

I apologise whole-heartedly for judging this from the screenshot alone and i shall make a point of downloading and reviewing it to apologise.

[edit]
but i'ma have to kick your butt for being called "hunter" ;D

LoL I hadn't realized devtex mappers were all like that.

Well thanks for apologizing...The Hunter I look forward for a review. Now onto the next project, away!

did a 6 player test on the TWHL CSS server.

Architecture:
While very blocky, the architecture is at least functional. Every brush has notably been placed with reason and gameplay in mind. Really nothing special, though.

Texturing:
I've actually seen some examples of dev texture maps which were pulled off nicely, but sadly this is not one of them. Blatantly no time at all has been spent on even the simplest texturing musts like alignment. The tops of rails and ladders are where this is most notably flawed.
Sorry, but it's just bad.

Lighting:
Nothing special at all here either. Lights have no sources at all and shadows are poorly defined. You could at least have changed the lightmap grid on the floor to 1 to get some interesting shadows going.

Gameplay:
As generic as they come. Adds nothing new at all to the dev texture CSS format and contains several poor design elements. Imagine those spawn rooms on a busy server. It'd take about a minute just to get everyone down the ladders.

Overall:
I'm very sorry, but this really is not a good map. It shows good knowledge of the Hammer environment, but has far more negative points than otherwise.
Not only is it lacking real textures, but the DEV textures haven't even been applied with care.

a very disapointed 2 stars.

"The" Hunter, thanks for the in depth review. I agree with everything that you mentioned. (even though I like my work :P). As I said before this map is my first CS:S Map, and also been 6 years since Ive used Worldcraft/Hammer. It took a while to remember how it worked. So I understand why you would not find it to be very good. Practice makes perfect. I'm at least relieved that I've start on a 2 star ratnig ratehr then 1 star...or worse... no stars (ohnoez!) I hope I can look foreword to more reviews from you in the near future.

One thing that I don't understand is that you mentioned something about changing the "lightmap grid on the floor to 1". What exactly do you mean by that? If you don't want to post on here you can pm if you like. Thanks!

ah. I assume by your 6 year and worldcraft reference that you started in the lovely, humble HL1 engine.
Lightmaps didn't exist back then.

it's really very simple.
Shift + a to bring up the texture face properties thingie, then change the lightmap grid number to something like 1 or 2.. lower the number, the more defined your shadows are. makes sexy maps.
Don't do it on every face or your RAD compile will take decades.

Also, if you're wanting more reviews from me, you're going to have to make it here ;D

Ah yes I did start in the humble HL1 engine...(ah the memories)...

Ok so thats why my I thought my shadows were bleh. Thanks for tge tip

Ah, I see now..well..i'll just have to do just that then

lol humble HL1 engine. It's all what you do with what you have. I have seen a lot of Source maps that looked like bad HL1 maps, and HL1 maps that looked gorgeous. It's more the mapper than the game.

Oh im well aware its me. I wasn't blaming anything else.

Ive been making model with Maya and so switching to Hammer again screwed up how I did alot of things. There UI's are completely different and it was the worse experience possible. I kept trying to use WASD in Maya which is silly because you can't @_@

I'm but amazed how for once, an aim map with dev textures has spawned a coherent discussion. D:
As for the map - playtested it with Hunteh, so for my review:
What he said, plus don't overlook ambience next time. Soundscapes have loads of awesome potential you can utilize in your Source maps.

I didn't realize it was such a big deal <_<

Soundscapes? is that like...sounds in the level? probably a stupid question lol

Have a lookie here.

With dev textures, I don't think it's possible to use lighting gridmaps.

Sure, you can set the grid density all you want in Hammer, but it does not translate into sharper shadows ingame. I suspect it's because dev textures are never meant to look good. It's purely functional. So the compiler ignores the gridmap information when it comes to dev textures.

I know this for a fact because I tried to overlay gridmap on a dev texture map before, and it didn't work.

This was my version of a dev texture map. It's really a publicity stunt for my website in thin disguise.

Is it a new clan? Going by what gun you have in the screenie, looks like it is. LOL><

"I would call it Non_Texture_Towers"

you have absolutely no idea what "texture_" maps are, don't you?