[User added a rating.]
ba1865cb8401ff0bfbec2933ec981dfc3c3090747b6d03a1daabb368afddd98c
overall_rating
4.507575757575758
66
[User added a rating.]
[User added a rating.]
[User added a rating.]
A sensational mapping achievement, which I wouldn’t have thought its author would ever be able to surpass … then along came the Marcher Fortress, which is even better. Still, this is a very sold five: if we were marking in percentages, it would be up in the mid-to-high nineties.
[User added a rating.]
The architecture is brilliant, and were that the only relevant element, I could easily give this a 5.
But sadly, like AAS above, I also found the gameplay boring (it felt very much like “kill all monsters in room 1, move to room 2, kill all monsters, move to room 3”, etc.). One could argue that that is essentially what one does in every FPS, but here it felt particularly stilted and artificial. There were some nice moments, though, like the sacrifice to the gods and the fiend trap, but not enough to redeem the entire experience.
In addition to that, some of the monsters felt very out of place, in particular the re-purposed Quake 2 enforcer (along with Quake 2’s radioactive barrels – in a medieval fort?), but also the base enemies in general. The large blue-ish monsters looked very amateurish in comparison to the beautiful setting.
Overall, as lovely as the architecture is, everything else just seems rather rough and unfinished – like a partially successful trial run before the masterpiece that is The Marcher Fortress.
I can see how you might downgrade it from 5 to 4 for those reasons, but – really, 3? 60%? Half way up the 1-5 scale? Wow.
MikeTaylor: Thank you for responding to my comment. Perhaps you are right; I can certainly see why you thought a 3 is too harsh. For what it’s worth, I was wavering between a 3 and a 4. I would not necessarily consider a 3 the equivalent of 60%, though – the downside of a 1 to 5 scale is that one cannot be as precise as with percentages.
I appreciate your passion for this map and I do think that the author is immensely talented; this just does not strike me as a well-rounded work when considered as a map to play through (as opposed to a virtual setting to admire).
Fortunately, too, my rating is just one among many and won’t change the fact that many others, like you, regard this map very highly.
Take into account that the rating in this website isn’t done like that, with percentages.
Check the ‘‘Help>Map Terminology’’ section, and go to the bottom of it. Then you will understand the ratings that are given to the maps.
Cocerello, I assume your comment is in response to MikeTaylor’s comment. I have always kept the descriptions in the Map Terminology section in mind when rating maps (plus subjective enjoyment, which I believe plays a significant role in user ratings as well, as opposed to editor’s ratings).
Even then, though, it is very hard to be precise with just five possibilities, and one person’s 4 might be another’s 3.
By the way, Cocerello, I have read quite a few of your comments on this site, and I usually find them very insightful and well-argued (even when I do not necessarily agree). Thank you for that.
[User added a rating.]
Unregistered user “Kawen” posted:
Ha! Close to 2 years from my question and no answer! 
An now i cannot also remind 4th secret… 
[User added a rating.]
[User added a rating.]
Cool map, new red eye monster scared the hell out of me first encounter!
[User added a rating.]
Unregistered user “Paolo” posted:
Very nice map, I found quite interesting the mix between modern-like enemies like soldiers and medieval ones.
The only complain I got is I do not like the minotaurs enemies.
Am I the only one who thinks that these Quake 3 textures looks better in Quake? They seem a lot more crisp.
This map looks beautiful and the hordes… well thank god for Save / Load 
What a masterpiece!
[User added a rating.]