Vordwann wrote:
Msleeper also said playground maps would be removed.

That would contradict them challenging anyone to make a good playground map.> MasterLagger wrote:

Ok, so an Areaportal is just a function (with the appropriate areaportal texture) that can somewhat control the graphics in certain areas so the map runs a little more smoothly? Am I getting the right idea?

Area Portals close off whole areas of your map (as in they will not draw) to improve performance. In Portal you would mainly use these to block off 2 areas which cannot see each other such as test chambers.

When the player ventures in to large areas, such as bts where you can see the chambers in the distance, this is a good place to put area-portals over the passageways that lead there.

msleeper wrote:
If a "playground" map is of sufficient quality - and by that I mean, it's not a single box room with fullbright and 1 texture - then I won't have a problem with it. The ones that were removed were nothing more, or not much more, than that though.

EDIT
The goal is not to stifle creativity or make a "No Fun Allowed" rule; we want to make sure that visitors know that TWP will continue to have some of the best quality Portal 2 maps on the internet. I have full faith that one of our many talented community members could make a "playground" map, and make it look good.

In fact, consider that a challenge. Anyone who thinks they can make a playground map that is also a "high quality download", do your best. I dare you.

This is from the "We are deleting..." topic. If anyone else is making a playground map, it better be good and have other people that do play playground maps think it's good also. However, people that don't like playground maps (in general), shouldn't whine about it in the mapper's Community Release topic because their opinion is invalid. If you don't like playground maps in the first place, don't download it.

Fact is that if you want to stay with the world of Aperture Science but change the gameplay instead, you have to be clear about it. For example, I'm worried myself because in my maps I've changed the platforming/puzzlesolving ratio and I'm unsure about the reaction.

xdiesp proposed a gauge for your performance in a playground map (good), but you should account for the player to be able to make goals on his own.

gallardo wrote:
Oh dear, are you serious? It's not gonna happen, people who don't like those maps in general will still come and reply, labeling them as "retarded"...

Yeah, I just feel some mappers try their best to make something pretty decent, and then some moron screws everything up. This happened on a different website that I used to download some Portal 1 maps.

gallardo wrote:
xdiesp proposed a gauge for your performance in a playground map (good), but you should account for the player to be able to make goals on his own.

There is only one "main" goal in the map, but that doesn't stop the player's from making their own goals. As I mentioned before, this map is big enough for players to goof around in or try to accomplish the "main" goal.

YM_Industries wrote:
I'd just like to say that my playground map Flaming Lemons got 10/10 on coopcrowd (1 of only 2 levels to do so) and has a current rating on the site of 4/5 (6 votes)
Does this not count?

Anything can please coop crowd but your map probably differs from most playground maps to be liked.

chickenmobile wrote:
YM_Industries wrote:

I'd just like to say that my playground map Flaming Lemons got 10/10 on coopcrowd (1 of only 2 levels to do so) and has a current rating on the site of 4/5 (6 votes)
Does this not count?

Anything can please coop crowd but your map probably differs from most playground maps to be liked.

Thanks Chicken! I loved your maps (especially when coop-crowd played them!)