MacSurvivor 2004

MacSurvivor Castillo - Immunity Challenge #5
"New Buddies"

Sponsored by:

Bare Bones
Bare Bones Software's mission is to produce best-of-class software for the Mac OS that incorporates state-of-the art engineering techniques taking advantage of the latest system software technologies.


Sponsored by:

Softpress Systems
Based in Oxford, England, Softpress Systems was founded in 1993 to address the emerging needs of professional publishers and designers for cross-media authoring tools, resulting in web design tools such as Freeway Pro and Express.




Overview:

For this fifth immunity challenge, we are buddying up the remaining castaways in teams of two, and each pair must consist of a member of the old iofthtiger tribe and a member of the old maclion tribe. Each time will submit a map of Castillo Island, and the one with the best map wins immunity for both team members!




Details:

All teams received a
rough sketch of the Castillo island. In this task, the sketch is used to create a 3D version of the Island of Castillo. It can be as simplistic or complex as you like, and vague areas of the map can be filled in with your interpretation of what should go there. Landmark areas are noted in the sketch, and must be included in the final map. The caveat is that of the two base camps, one must be labeled "Abandoned Camp", and the other must by labeled "Cybernauts Base Camp". Jim has already selected that the old MacLion camp is the new Cybernaut camp.

Final Map will be judged in the following areas:

1. Visual 3D appearance
2. Creative interpretations
3. Feel for island life and general ambience
4. Path mappings

The due date for this challenge is midnight 11/30/05 Castillo time (Pacific time).

Rough drafts may be submitted early for feedback.

Each map will earn a score, and the team with the highest score wins immunity.

There will be 100 points possible for accuracy of structures. Did you include all the primary structures, such as base camps, bodies of water, tribal council, and other "hot spots". Are "hot spots" labeled correctly? Are pathways accurate? To score a perfect 100, you'll need accuracy down to the details of the original game maps for each of the camps. For example, the building at the top of the cliffs near the tiger camp, or the fact that part of the lion camp was in the forest. Early submissions will receive feedback that may help your score, but no scores will be provided until the final submission.

There will also be 100 points possible for creativity. This includes the visual appeal, the methods used to depict structures and locations, the quality of the graphics, and the areas of the map which are currently unexplored.

The final 100 points will be based strictly upon the panel of judges. This panel will be judging the maps for visual appeal, usefulness, and readability.

When submitting your map, be sure to include the tools you used to create it. That includes the tools used to create, update, label, and polish your map, as well as the tools used to communicate with your partner during the challenge.

It is imperative that your team submit a map (and a revised version of my sketch will NOT count). At the next tribal council, each castaway will have two votes. For teams that do not submit a map, you will only have 1 vote, PLUS there will be more than one person voted off the island.

The three teams are:




Results:

The Team of Jim and Moe defaulted on the challenge, and did not submit a map. Therefore, both castaways lose a vote a tribal council, and now there will be two castaways voted off at the next Tribal.

The Team of Diane and John submitted the following map:
Map1
The tools they used:


The Team of Mark and Scott submitted the following map:
Map2
The tools they used:

The final score:

Diane/John: 525
Mark/Scott: 523

Incredibly close! But Diane and John pulled out the victory, and have both earned immunity for the next tribal council.




Accuracy Scores:
Diane/John: 100 pts
Mark/Scott: 100 pts

Everything that was supposed to be there, is there, and in the correct location with the correct labels.


Creativity Scores:
Diane/John: 80 pts
Nice re-creation of the Merlin Caves, and excellent creative depiction of the island (including the alternate views). I didn't care for the blue glow on the yellow font. Texturing was original and flowing in all areas, the rocks were better looking than the forest areas (which looked more like puffy golf courses). The map felt a bit crammed, but all of the appropriate areas were correctly portrayed, with extra names for the bays and lakes. The paths were difficult to see, and the huts didn't really look like huts.
Mark/Scott: 70 pts
I enjoyed the graphics (reminded me of the old Might and Magic games). Font was a nice font, and everything of importance appears to be represented by an appropriate graphic. Extra names for the unexplored coast line and ship dock. There was repetitive texturing, and not all the paths were clear, but the overall layout was easy to read and follow.

NOTE: Both maps were awarded 70 points for general creativity. Map1, however, earned an additional 10 points for the alternate map views, a totally unexpected and very creative bonus inclusion.

GENERAL COMMENT: I was hoping that one of the teams would have showed monkeys tossing prizes into the ocean. That would have been a big point-scoring extra.


Judges Scores:
Diane/John: 345
Mark/Scott: 353

Judge #1: Map1 = 82 pts, Map2 = 70 pts

NOTES: Perfect score on 3D appearance for Map1, higher score for map usefulness for Map2.

Judge #2: Map1 = 55 pts, Map2 = 70 pts

NOTES: In Map1, shadows almost make a semblance of 3D; the green areas look best, but still pretty flat; the volcano's got no cone; the water is interesting; the tower, castle and camps are well-textured but not identifiable without captions; the captions should not cover the island (stick them out over the water with an arrow pointing to the feature); not much island life here; of limited usefulness as a guide due to the caption problem and lack of scale; that's a sword hovering over the island from NW to SE! In Map2, limited effort at 3D; this is more akin to the old paint on the features type of map; the mountains and trees look curiously similar; the captions don't interfere with the view of the map here; extra points for Mele Kalikimaka Coast; no path names, no scale and no rosette, but less interference by captions makes a cleaner map.

Judge #3: Map1 = 78 pts, Map2 = 73 pts

NOTES: Both maps were of a different style altogether, and both had a different appeal. Map1 demonstrated a full 3D effect. This gave the map a lot more depth, as well as varying landscapes. On the other hand, Map1 felt really out of proportion, as the island felt a lot smaller than it actually was (I believe this is due to the shadows giving the objects a height that was out of proportion to the map scale). Map2 uses a 2D based grid with 3D objects pasted onto it. There was a lot of repetitive landscaping, but the map was easier to read and did a better job of providing the correct sense of size. I was most impressed by the effort expended on Map1 in terms of visual graphics, especially the alternate views of the island. I was most impressed by Map2 in terms of using the map as a guide map.

Judge #4: Map1 = 60 pts, Map2 = 80 pts

NOTES: Map1 has TOO much 3D; I also don't like the shadow and the island also seems very cluttered. Map2 has balanced perspective for 3D; I like the mountain arrangements; the reader needs to look closely at the map, comparing multiple visual cues and clues to understand their location; Makes the reader use more than elementary logic to deduce location.

Judge #5: Map1 = 70 pts, Map2 = 60 pts

NOTES: No feedback given.