I feel that you, having worked alongside me for so long, wouldn't misinterpret me so easily . I know it's not a case of simply tagging on a couple of columns and calling it aesthetics. In the sense you're talking I think Genome fulfils the idea that good design can incorporate an aesthetic eye when choosing suitable objects and combining them with the desired gameplay in mind. What I was talking about was the practice (and we both know first hand how this goes, having seen it in maps that generally don't make feature) of exactly what you seem to think I'm saying: designing a map and then thinking 'now for aesthetics'. I don't think Genome has any specific points where different objects or collections of objects could have been used without sacrifice to objective purpose to increase aesthetic appeal, or at least none jump out at me. Therefore, when reading his post I could only assume that he was talking in terms of Ladnil specifically going out of his way to add some aesthetic touches on top of what is there just for their own sake. When he, in the very same post, talked about framerate issues, seeing him almost directly ask for more, arguably superfluous objects to be added seemed a little gratuitous, only conforming to the tick box attitude to gameplay and aesthetics that you seem to have projected on to my post. Granted I'm not the most familiar with FW's object set and the minutiae of what objects can fulfil the same purpose but look a little better when combined, but as I said above there are no bits of Genome which jump out at me as being open to a little visual spice without compromising the slim and careful approach to object use (since you have to bear in mind that even an object which is exactly the same size as another can have worse properties for performance, shoving a bit of glass in to make something look better than a slightly mismatched pair of blocks can and does impact upon performance). Also, considering that Genome has had issues getting in to MM specifically due to performance issues, can anyone really blame Ladnil for erring on the side of caution when it comes to something that is, if not superfluous, at least secondary to fluid and flawless gameplay? I certainly don't. Budgets aren't as constricting as the frankly overblown objects and canvas that Bungie have given us in FW. As long as you're creating a whole environment (not using existing FW geo), not running in to any framerate or performance issues is tough. Put it like this: I challenge anyone to take this map and rebuild it in a significant enough fashion to fulfil their own perceptions of a suitable aesthetic (or rather visual, since I take your very good point point below on board) appeal and fluidity, not only maintaining levels of technical performance that Genome has but even surpassing it in terms of the tests Bungie apply, tests which I'd remind people that this version of Genome failed in terms of making it in to MM. This, however, is something I totally agree with. I feel that it once again tends towards the tick box approach to forging, and doesn't even do justice to visual appeal as something integrated and not tacked on, let alone the principles of visual orientation etc. which are not just there to be appealing but to enhance gameplay in turn, just as you say. I also feel that the distinction with an MLG map is being somewhat downplayed here. A map designed for use on the circuit, even having significant interest shown in it for this purpose, does not have to sell itself to anyone in the terms in which more casual players will often address the visual appeal of a map. The only key visual aspects which have an essential part in the design process are the ones which Matty touched on, those which serve to reinforce the sense of place and direction for the player within the map environment, basically those inherently tied in to solid gameplay. In this key sense I feel that Genome does well. It's a relatively simple design that is easy to appreciate and get to grips with quite quickly, and yet has distinct aspects of this design which stand out and serve as strong points by which to orientate oneself when playing on it. I personally always work around the central bridges or outer walkways when trying to orientate myself quickly off respawn. However, as a rotationally symmetrical map it obviously has the problem that every position on the map has an identical counterpart which must be distinguished in some way for the respawning player. There are two ways to approach this: colour or shape. Lights are ideal but obviously out as they are a peformance nightmare, and so Ladnil used object colours to help distinguish positions, which I'd agree was the best option available. Adding a couple of extra objects on identical positions can help with a quick glance and orientation, but once again this is pushing the object density problem. You can call this somewhat overzealous if you like, but when this map has specifically been failed for MM purposes on this particular basis, once again I'd take the same route as Ladnil in avoiding anything which could hurt this aspect of performance. This map, as well as others which show the principle of clean cut design and object choice whilst refraining from potentially dangerous over use of objects, has been very well received by MLG playtesters. They clearly feel that, for the specific purpose for which it was designed, it fulfils this requirement of gameplay-essential visual qualities enough to play well. Past this, the aesthetic element of immersion for the player is a superfluous aspect of design for the purposes of an MLG map. That's not to say it isn't a plus if it's there, but it's not essential in any way, shape or form. No one (well, no one sensible anyway) playing this map in the context which it was designed for would push for a design approach that makes them think 'wow', or even just, 'huh, cool' if it is at the cost of even the slightest aspect of either desired gameplay or technical performance. Is it nice to have this where possible? For sure, but when there are so many basic issues with the way Bungie have approached forge for highly competitive play, it's simply not a priority very often. So in short, if you're asking keen MLG map designers to make choices (and not even just adding in overlay objects, but making choices at design and object choice stages) based primarily on subjective player immersion, you're going to be consistently disappointed. I know some of the comments made by both of you, chrs and (to a certain extent) Matty, are talking in general terms, but when relating them to my comments I feel that you somewhat failed to take in to account how I was talking in specific relation to this map and exactly how Ladnil approached object choice and visual balance in design terms. I'm far from promoting the formulaic and oversimplified idea that gameplay>aesthetics. Even if there's a grain of important truth in there, I agree that it's reductive and misses the point of finer forging, tbh I'm a little disappointed that such an assumption was made when you've known me for so long.
Why is there such a distinguishment between a "MLG" map and a "competitive" map, like how we have two different sub forums here. Shouldn't the same design princibles applied to making any high end competitive map hold true for the both? There are many solid maps in the competitive section that could play MLG game types well, and vice versa. Why do we segregate these into two categories when a good map is still a good map at the end of the day? I look at this not as a MLG map, but as a solid competive map. Fix the frame rate and choose a few different pieces for aesthetic flourishes and I'd say it would be ideal.
MLG has a different set of standards, specific only to MLG maps. The design principles apply regardless, but things like weapons and certain object use often pertain only to MLG maps.
What standards? Will I be able to find them if I analyze Zealot? What about Reflection? Midship? Guardian? Lockout? These are all maps the shipped with Halo games that have played MLG circuit, yet were designed for the basic fundamental game play that it was shipped with. And MLG forgers, do you really think they design their maps to work only with MLG? That is a shallow assumption. The only difference is gametype, everything else conforms to the same basic principles any forger follows. It just so happens that certain maps favor MLG style play over others... Case in point, Countdown vs Powerhouse. And yes, Powerhouse was considered for MLG... Countdown was simply a better choice. Both play default settings all the same.
Things like weapon choice and having AAs on the map, as well as no explosive barrels, no turrets, no vehicles, 110 speed, 110 jump, 150 gravity making jumps work differently, all go into making MLG maps different from regular. I personally like that there's an MLG subforum separate from the competitive one, though perhaps a similar effect could be achieved with a map prefix. As for the aesthetics of this map, well, all I can say in defense of myself is that this map was made within 5 days of Reach coming out. I wasn't fully familiar with the objects yet. Plus, as Pegasi has stated, I've had problems getting this into matchmaking because of object density. I posted a set of V4s each with gradually more drastic changes on my fileshare and also on MLG's site, and hopefully one of those will be acceptable, but I can't say they did much to improve aesthetics except replace the wall, doubles forming the lower bridge with 4x4 flats. I'm not going to sit here defending my aesthetics though. I try to keep things clean, but aesthetic value is extremely low on my list of priorities, and I feel that it is retarded how high it appears to be to many on this site. Plus, one of the things Killa KC said he really liked about Genome compared to the other maps submitted to MLG's arena map contest was the aesthetics. It's not enclosed in a grey box like every other submission was, so Forge World's visuals serve to add color and help with orientation far better than a few more colored struts would have.