For those who are new to this topic, I've been posting info about creating a new BF2 map that I hope Dice/EA will approve for ranked play. After proposing several concepts and having community members offer their vote and suggestions it was determined that the city of Spokane, WA was the most popular map concept out of the choices provided. You guys can find the original threads here:
Vote Thread:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=8907
Update:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=16014
Anyway, I decided to make some minor revisions to the concept and I would like some feedback. Do you guys prefer the layout and flag placement of revision 1, 2, or 3 more?
Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3
_________________________________________________________
Notice:
I've had a few players ask why Spokane? Why not create a large recognizeable city instead?
There are a few reasons. It's definitely not the most glamorous, well-known, or significant city by any means. I've actually only been there once, which was last summer. I instantly started thinking about the locations I could snipe, hide, or launch an attack from during an urban battle.
1) The downtown region of Spokane is small enough to allow for heated infantry fights.
2) The geography is somewhat unique because the city actually has a river running through it with a series of waterfalls and a central park located on an island with several connecting bridges.
3) There are structures such as a sports arena, an IMAX theatre, a trendy three-story mall, a 20 screen cinema, a Convention Center/Opera House, hotels, restuarants, a clock tower (nice for sniping), a viewing platform, sky bridges, and office buildings all in a small area. There are currently no maps that feature these types of modern city elements.
4) It's a location I can physically visit so that I can get accurate and detailed reference material. (It's only about 6 hours from where I live)
Why not make a well-known big city like New York, LA, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.?
1) These cities are too big to be playable with the current limit of 64 players.
2) The number of static meshes required to populate a large city and still maintain a decent level of detail would bring most PC's to a crawl.
3) Even if the map was reduced to a small section of a large city the out-of-bounds area would still have to be created to account for all of the buildings and surrounding geographic elements. Otherwise, it wouldn't be convincing as a real city if there was no ongoing city skyline beyond the playable area.
I've said this before, but I think most people past over it.
Can't wait to get some feedback.
Vote Thread:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=8907
Update:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=16014
Anyway, I decided to make some minor revisions to the concept and I would like some feedback. Do you guys prefer the layout and flag placement of revision 1, 2, or 3 more?
Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3
_________________________________________________________
Notice:
I've had a few players ask why Spokane? Why not create a large recognizeable city instead?
There are a few reasons. It's definitely not the most glamorous, well-known, or significant city by any means. I've actually only been there once, which was last summer. I instantly started thinking about the locations I could snipe, hide, or launch an attack from during an urban battle.
1) The downtown region of Spokane is small enough to allow for heated infantry fights.
2) The geography is somewhat unique because the city actually has a river running through it with a series of waterfalls and a central park located on an island with several connecting bridges.
3) There are structures such as a sports arena, an IMAX theatre, a trendy three-story mall, a 20 screen cinema, a Convention Center/Opera House, hotels, restuarants, a clock tower (nice for sniping), a viewing platform, sky bridges, and office buildings all in a small area. There are currently no maps that feature these types of modern city elements.
4) It's a location I can physically visit so that I can get accurate and detailed reference material. (It's only about 6 hours from where I live)
Why not make a well-known big city like New York, LA, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.?
1) These cities are too big to be playable with the current limit of 64 players.
2) The number of static meshes required to populate a large city and still maintain a decent level of detail would bring most PC's to a crawl.
3) Even if the map was reduced to a small section of a large city the out-of-bounds area would still have to be created to account for all of the buildings and surrounding geographic elements. Otherwise, it wouldn't be convincing as a real city if there was no ongoing city skyline beyond the playable area.
I've said this before, but I think most people past over it.
Can't wait to get some feedback.
Last edited by LG-MindBullets (2006-03-03 15:27:26)