Listen to me explain my reasoning for Aesthetics being superior to Gameplay! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHtT_vz4ChM
I actually think that this is rather interesting. I've never heard an argument against gameplay so well thought out that I can remember. I'd have to say that to an extent, Sins is right. Aesthetics put in in the game, turn the pillar to part of a building, and help gameplay through visual call-outs. The argument is well presented, and if we only consider smaller maps it has great weight. However, I will always be of the beleif that a map can be the prettiest thing ever and play awfully. Larger maps are also more difficult to design aesthetics for, and so the intricate and large scale things simply for aesthetics ar more difficult to implement there because the foucus is in fact on playing a good game. So yes, this holds an interesting claim, but no more in my opinion. Gameplay overrides aesthetics every time unless the core function of the map is to be looked at. Silent, I'm pretty sure that its possible to have an intelligent debate/conversation without a flame war. Your saying that one is to come doesn't help.
There won't be any flaming here, or it will quickly be extinguished. Trust me. Now as for this video, I'm not entirely sure how to respond. If the basic concept is that aesthetics and gameplay are on a continuum - that is, good aesthetics make for a good structure that promotes good gameplay - then the natural conclusion to me is not that aesthetics are more important than gameplay, but that they are not separate notions like a lot of people make them out to be, and the best maps fluidly incorporate both in a seamless whole that is both easy on the eyes and easy to orient yourself within (aesthetic traits); but also plays well and has good flow (gameplay traits). I feel personally like I no longer care about the whole debate, because it's a false dichotomy. Though it is true that if you want a map to play well, the first thing you often have to sacrifice - for performance reasons if nothing else - is aesthetics. But you can still make a nice-looking, thematically-unified, structurally sound map on a reasonable budget. People do it all the time.
but he is our crack head.... well i think the rest of us saw this coming... Edited by merge: So to the topic, he may have some valid points, and you can say what you want about aesthetics being important or irrelevant. The FACT is that some maps are detested by SOME players ONLY BECAUSE they are ugly as sin (no pun intended). I for one hate maps that demonstrate no theme, not character. But my greatest rage is toward maps that are visually noisy, and on Ravine that is the norm. This is why my map arrival relied exclusively on rocks and not on any blocks (except the forerunner artifact). But I digress...
There wasn't much discussion to be had in the first place. The points and examples made were generally irrelevent to and didn't support the debate presented in the title.
I disagree with his premise that aesthetics shape and will always shape any structure. That simply isn't true. Aesthetics provide structure with clarity, but the structure gives itself structure. How you perceive that structure is to a large part of the total surroundings and the architecture applied to that structure. Also aesthetics in the sense of forging is the aggregate of all visual, audible, and tactile senses. This means for forgers that you cannot change your ambiance, but you can eliminate visual noise by the types of blocks you use. the definition he used either is an alternate definition or one that is so vague to applying I would never use it. As for his example, he made no sense. He was asking us something rather than telling us something, and his question seemed out of place for the premise itself. He was asking what if we chose to build the structure for its aesthetics? Okay, what if we do? so what? How has that got to do with the aesthetics being more important than game play? The two issues, the way he presents them, are orthogonal to each other.
Well I understand your opinion but to me no amount of aesthetics can replace good gameplay. A map can look good but if it doesnt play good thats all it is. Bottom line. So I agree but also disagree.
If a map looks good i feel more "at home" on the map, thus makin the experience better...if its just a buncha bland blocks and **** i get disgusted with it more quickly. Simple logic, if its ugly to look at, you dont want to look at it. That being said, unless the gameplay is just so insanely awesome that simple design doesnt matter, i'd rather play on a map thats pleasing to both my eyes and my playing Now this point: if a map looks AMAZING but plays awful, IE adrift (imo..i hate that map) then asthetics are pointless. The trick is finding the balance. Everything in life has to have balance.
I posted this as a youtube comment: To elaborate, if you consider the argument "Aesthetics vs. Gameplay" then this assumes a trade-off. One or the other. The video doesn't cover this idea though, and to me, it basically says "pretty is better than ugly, so aesthetics are better." If I'm incorrect on that, please do correct me.
You just described the term "immersion", and it is critical. However, for some people, it is easy even with no cohesive aesthetics (don't ask me how, I don't get it either).
Ah. Didnt have the right word for it but yeah...great gameplay is great and all, but if the textures and surfaces and designs of the map are shitty and bland it just feels dead to me. I dont play with the same energy as i would on say, the original lockout as opposed to the cardboard box lookin Shutout remake.
Immersion accounts for little when your map is broken Exhibit A: http://www.forgehub.com/forum/reach-competitive-maps/139526-aqualithe.html#post1523221 beautiful, immersive, plays like crap, thus it's death
I'll watch the video in a sec, but there is one main rule here: If you are designing a map to be PLAYED on, the most important feature is how it plays. Aesthetic parts of the design are important for it to be anything more than a whitebox area, and some aesthetics have gameplay functions or are worked into gameplay, but in the end Gameplay can work without aesthetics, but not the other way around.
I agree with both of you. play is king. but i can't stand how people use that mantra to excuse their lack of artistic talent or laziness in making their maps look like trash... that is all it really comes down to. it has never been in my mind one or the other. But that is the argument people make when they don't know how to make their maps look nice.
I'm actually guilty of designing the aesthetics as I make the map, and building the map as I combine aesthetics :|