Our Minecraft servers are offline but we will keep this forum online for any community communication. Site permissions for posting could change at a later date but will remain online.
I completely understand what you mean. That's why I left out the "gameplay" review. I agree that Moonlight Lake 1 was fun to play (not my personal favorite but still fun nonetheless). Now, even with that said, I somewhat agree that it isn't the type of map for mcsg.... We do need fun maps to play but I think the maps should still look nice. The whole thing with the "raising map standards" and all that was directed towards the maps on the servers that don't look too great... GuyK has definately raised his own standards from Moonlight Lake 1 to Moonlight Lake 2 but I don't think it's enough to get it on the servers (Remember, all this is just my opinion. Others may think differently)Well Moonlight Lake 1 proved that a map doesn't need to have extraordinary builds or superb terraforming in order to be popular. The unique part of Moonlight Lake 1 was the actual bloodbath at corn, the quickness of games, and the "nowhere to run" aspect. As the successor to Moonlight Lake 1, Moonlight Lake 2 is supposed to continue the trend. Although I haven't played any games on it, I have downloaded the map. From my observations, Moonlight Lake 2 will continue the trend of epic gameplay.
Source? I remember when there was a rumor like 2 months ago about removing Moonlight Lake 1. There was complete outrage with many players making threads about why it shouldn't get removed.Yet, that's the reason their considering removing Moonlight Lake 1....
I guess your opinion is your opinion and can't be changed. I, personally, would love to see this map on the servers as an interesting change of pace, gameplay wise, from other maps.I completely understand what you mean. That's why I left out the "gameplay" review. I agree that Moonlight Lake 1 was fun to play (not my personal favorite but still fun nonetheless). Now, even with that said, I somewhat agree that it isn't the type of map for mcsg.... We do need fun maps to play but I think the maps should still look nice. The whole thing with the "raising map standards" and all that was directed towards the maps on the servers that don't look too great... GuyK has definately raised his own standards from Moonlight Lake 1 to Moonlight Lake 2 but I don't think it's enough to get it on the servers (Remember, all this is just my opinion. Others may think differently)
Alright, I thought I'd give this map a review since I've read through the pages and it seems as though there are those who have downloaded it and there are those who just looked at the screenshots....The screenshots alone can SOMETIMES *just emphasizing the sometimes :3 * be a judge of a map. In this case, the screenshots shouldn't be used as the only way to judge this one since they are taken in an extreme texture pack. Now, before everyone starts yelling "oh, well other people use shaders", shaders is usually in default texture packs so you can at least get a feel of the map. I know that this isn't really an excuse but either aren't the best indicators of maps.
Now, on to the main point that I would like to make: The screenshots so drastically change the appearance that it's somewhat unfair to those who simply don't download it or those who just glance at the screenshot and drool over the texture pack. As you have seen several times on this thread, people continue to ask for the texture pack. This shows that it definitely has an effect on them. This whole thing can better be explained through the comparison of screenshots. Now, this won't show the whole map, so, again, please download it and take a look around.
Please note that if you click the spoiler, I show the map how you would see it in the default texture pack in game.
Also, it is quite a lot to take in but please review it and rethink the reviews about how everyone is "drooling" over the map when in actuality, it's really not even average...It's quite below average.
Compare this one to the first picture on the original post- View attachment 11649
Now, this picture shows that part is ok at best. The screenshot on the first page makes it out to be much better than it actually is.
Now, onto the next one, I can't show one for the second picture since that is a rendered pic. But, the third one, here-
View attachment 11650
Again, this building is only average at best (an that's being optimistic about it).
Fourth pic-
View attachment 11651
This terraforming is nice but honestly, not the best.
Fifth pic-
View attachment 11652
This is the pic where you can see a definite difference and it is VERY drastically different. Everything there is very amateur (in my opinion, remember everything I'm saying here is in my opinion).
6th pic-
View attachment 11653
Honestly, I have no idea what this is.....
Now, I won't continue with copies of the screenshots of the map over the top since my render distance won't allow it :3
Here's a few pics that show how random and poorly built the map is (I know the theme is supposed to be "wild and random" but I think that's just an excuse for putting structures that are sub-par.
View attachment 11654
View attachment 11655
Also, signs on the map such as these make it seem VERY unprofessional. Honestly, you should remove them because they deviate from any small piece of a theme that you have (which isn't too much at the moment).
View attachment 11656
View attachment 11657
Overall, I would give this map a 2/10 and that's being generous......Please, when responding to this comment, give legitimate answers instead of brushing off the constructive criticism like you have so far.
Source? I remember when there was a rumor like 2 months ago about removing Moonlight Lake 1. There was complete outrage with many players making threads about why it shouldn't get removed.
I guess your opinion is your opinion and can't be changed. I, personally, would love to see this map on the servers as an interesting change of pace, gameplay wise, from other maps.
Sorry, I'm currently on mobile and there are no tags. I guess I'll just take your word on it.Source? Well I'm a Mod and we have these discussions.
Alright, I thought I'd give this map a review since I've read through the pages and it seems as though there are those who have downloaded it and there are those who just looked at the screenshots....The screenshots alone can SOMETIMES *just emphasizing the sometimes :3 * be a judge of a map. In this case, the screenshots shouldn't be used as the only way to judge this one since they are taken in an extreme texture pack. Now, before everyone starts yelling "oh, well other people use shaders", shaders is usually in default texture packs so you can at least get a feel of the map. I know that this isn't really an excuse but either aren't the best indicators of maps.
Now, on to the main point that I would like to make: The screenshots so drastically change the appearance that it's somewhat unfair to those who simply don't download it or those who just glance at the screenshot and drool over the texture pack. As you have seen several times on this thread, people continue to ask for the texture pack. This shows that it definitely has an effect on them. This whole thing can better be explained through the comparison of screenshots. Now, this won't show the whole map, so, again, please download it and take a look around.
Please note that if you click the spoiler, I show the map how you would see it in the default texture pack in game.
Also, it is quite a lot to take in but please review it and rethink the reviews about how everyone is "drooling" over the map when in actuality, it's really not even average...It's quite below average.
Compare this one to the first picture on the original post- View attachment 11649
Now, this picture shows that part is ok at best. The screenshot on the first page makes it out to be much better than it actually is.
Now, onto the next one, I can't show one for the second picture since that is a rendered pic. But, the third one, here-
View attachment 11650
Again, this building is only average at best (an that's being optimistic about it).
Fourth pic-
View attachment 11651
This terraforming is nice but honestly, not the best.
Fifth pic-
View attachment 11652
This is the pic where you can see a definite difference and it is VERY drastically different. Everything there is very amateur (in my opinion, remember everything I'm saying here is in my opinion).
6th pic-
View attachment 11653
Honestly, I have no idea what this is.....
Now, I won't continue with copies of the screenshots of the map over the top since my render distance won't allow it :3
Here's a few pics that show how random and poorly built the map is (I know the theme is supposed to be "wild and random" but I think that's just an excuse for putting structures that are sub-par.
View attachment 11654
View attachment 11655
Also, signs on the map such as these make it seem VERY unprofessional. Honestly, you should remove them because they deviate from any small piece of a theme that you have (which isn't too much at the moment).
View attachment 11656
View attachment 11657
Overall, I would give this map a 2/10 and that's being generous......Please, when responding to this comment, give legitimate answers instead of brushing off the constructive criticism like you have so far.
This map isnt good at all, the fact that you changed your comment saying: ofcourse it looks bad because Tree_TheBigKind had nothing on, proves your own point. This map shouldnt be added to MCSG. Agreed, below average.