If we want to focus on gameplay over aesthetics, maybe we should change the title from artisan back to something like architect. I've found aesthetics can play a big part in gameplay because people will gravitate towards places that look cool more than boring places. Messy forging also causes a problem when people get distracted by messy patterns and random things that look out of place. If people thought to focus on gameplay, they'd realize that aesthetics come easily after it.
Gameplay and aesthetics are both important parts in making a map. Very few people actually realize this, but aesthetics can improve gameplay. It can allow you to get to key points quickly without having to first think "Am I going in the right direction?". Unique and easy-to-spot aesthetics eliminate the need to stop and think, and allow you to continue to focus on the more important things in winning a match. Even SecretSchnitzel as well as various other members in the MLG community have started to realize the importance in having aesthetics in your maps.
Though I'm sure this has been addressed earlier in this thread (Kind of just looked through bits and pieces of it) I just wanted to add some clarity to this subject. The best kind of aesthetic is the kind which is a part within the map that has purpose like a beautiful floor/ceiling/wall pattern or something along those lines. However, if the design is preconceived and is a solid structure with little flaw in those aspects, we should not demonize tiny aesthetically pleasing additions. As long as the design of the map is not altered negatively and there is no new issue of framerate lag or any other technical issues, than there is no harm in creating a nicer atmosphere for players. But this also goes back to my original point, the main aesthetics should be worked into the map's architecture and design and there shouldn't be as much emphasis on additional pieces for the sole purpose of looking good. I'm just saying that's fine to have some if it doesn't hurt anything. But this is not a new topic at all, people who make most of the "aesthetic > gameplay" maps (if that's what you want to call them) are the ones with little or no background knowledge on map design. That and/or they could be alienated from others who actually knew what they were doing much like myself when I first started. You just have to let people grow and learn from experience.
This doesn't seem like an either or thing. That guide linked in the OP is really good and seems to be the correct use of aesthetics, not a rejection of them. I don't know usually I can look at a map and it'll look aesthetically pleasing to me in ways that convey good gameplay. Where is this hunchback map that looks incredibly ugly but has super good gameplay? i think it is a myth
Ok guys I think that this is getting to be a bit much, I do not have a problem with this community and how they do things. I have a problem with some of the people not being concerned with how your map is going to play first then adding aesthetics. This is how a map is going to last and have people enjoy playing the game more and more. I think that Pulse said it best and was correct. People need to stop just trying to get downloads and be more concerned about the maps gameplay. I like this community but at times some of the people get a bit out of hand with what they say. People need to have less of a harsh opinion about this, because this is still an opinion. I would like to say that I do care about aesthetic and if you look at my maps you will see that. The earlier maps of mine show the progression of me learning the importance of using the correct objects and aesthetics. As of right now I have not bulit a map in a while but I am working on 4 maps at the moment, along with updates to a few of my previous maps. Thanks for all of your opinions and hope that you try and take this as a opinion not an accusation.
This is what pisses me off. There are many people who you'll notice get a really popular map, and then refuse to update it because they don't want to lose their 25,000 downloads by uploading a new file. It was already obvious to me that you weren't completely against aesthetics. The people who only care about aesthetics and getting attention and could care less if their map has terrible gameplay need to be informed that they are not making their maps correctly, especially if they post it in the competitive section intentionally just to get extra downloads. I hate to point out any names, but timmypanic is a good example of this. In the majority of his maps, he had nothing but aesthetics and huge FR issues. Some of his maps that had competitive potential were ruined because he put a merged cluster of objects in the middle of the map. Though in his more recent maps, he has moved into more of a competitive direction, and has almost gotten rid of FR issues. Off-Topic: I'm still thinking about how I HLG-trolled you on that "flaming ninja challenge" map.
Agree. Plan out your paths, walls, cover, level variances etc in a way that will provide for (what you hope will be) good, balanced gameplay. Then consider "Can I make these walls, cover, paths in a way that has a certain theme, style or uniformity?" Can I make this look forerunnerish? Can I make it look like a city... or like a construction site? If you can do something like this without compromising the gameplay, fantastic! This is where the aesthetics come in. Making a good map pretty. Aesthetic touches are also usefull for map identification, callouts and navigation. The point where aesthetics can take over is when the author bases the entire map on something he made that looks cool. "Hey this crane looks really cool, I'm going to make a map with lots of these cranes". If the crane provides cover, walkways, paths etc in a way that does not unbalanced game play (especially with regards to jet-packers) then that's great. But if not, why build them? (except as mentioned above as a landmark to aid navigation)
I am SO gonna download it!!!!11111 BTT: Don't argue, best way is to balance between gameplay + aesthetics. You need both of it to get a GOOD playable + enjoyable map...
I understand I have annoyed people with over aesthetics in competitive... Since I have learnt what I have I haven't posted many maps in competitive. Looks are important to ...but so is gameplay and framerate. If I know there are problems I always do my best to improve the issues, and if a remake is needed I will do regardless of how many downloads the map has received. I'm still learning... I would like to say that in tests framerate varies depending on players connection, and it is annoyance hearing users and players in game motioning FR issues when no one else has the issue. Question is aesthetics important in map making.... Yes ...but not as important as gameplay . If a map has no aesthetics it will have less gameplay value... People like effort put into maps, and simple maps, regardless of gameplay will get less attention and gameplay time as well. There are obviously exceptions to this but that would involve amazing , fun gameplay.
It's all good and well saying that we're obsessed with aesthetics when that's clearly not the problem. The problem is we have well over 60000 members which about 90% have submitted content to the forums in their time. A lot of members have submitted multiple files to the forums... So let's just say theres about 500000 maps available to download out there, are you honestly going to go through all 500000 maps and state your honest opinion on gameplay alone? The answer is no. When you, like everyone else, browses the map databases you download the maps that intrigue you and peak your interest. Considering you can only preview the maps from a visual aspect before downloading them your whole opinion is based off of visuals alone, therefore, maps that LOOK BETTER get more downloads. FACT. There is nothing you can do about it. You can spend hours, days and months informing people "they're doing it wrong" yet in the end of the day, they're getting downloads because they know how to advertise their maps. This happens on EVERY SINGLE FORUM regardless of where you are, we're just bigger for forge creations therefore get the stupid association with only considering aesthetics.