Hello Hub, It's been debated for a long time what really defines a competitive or casual map. As someone who has designed on all parts of this spectrum it's a topic that really intrigues me, and one that I've noticed popping up in many a map thread, often accompanied by some rather strong feelings. This thread is for an intellectual debate and discussion of the topic to take place, so lets to try keep it that way. Feel free to reference maps via link, but try to do so in a way that is not considered insulting, and if someone references your map, take it with a grain of salt. Also remember, casual maps are not necessarily bad maps. We often label maps that throw logical level design or poor object placement into the casual category when they should be in the BROKEN category. There is a huge difference here, as maps that do something unusual and work are not the same as ones that are unusual and fail. A few questions to stimulate discussion: • What do you see as a competitive or casual map? Do any blur the line? What features define these maps as comp or cas? • Can a casual map be competitive, and if so what keeps it from being considered competitive? Is competitive possibly a misnomer for the type of maps we generally label as such? Personally, I'm not entirely sure what constitutes casual anymore, as almost ever game mode features a strong competitive aspect besides some mini-games, puzzles, etc... It's hard to argue that infection is casual after designing a very teamwork and strategy oriented linear infection map a few months ago. For a long time I called any map that was poorly designed as casual, but as I explored into the "casual" map community I realized that most of the good causal maps were competitive. I'm still trying to figure it all out, so I'm interested to hear opinions from all ends of the spectrum.
well I think the way you started this discussion is brilliant. non-threatening and just looking for clarification and understanding. this has intrigued me as well, because I may possibly have made a map that was intended to be more competetive but probably turned out more casual. here's what I mean, LaForge my Star Trek level was intended to be a fully functioning "playable" map that could have some fun battles on it, but due to constraints placed on the design for various reasons, can't have all the elements that competetive maps usually have, such as perfect balance of gameplay etc. Aesthetics were most definitely placed ahead of balanced gameplay as priorities, with some ideas I wanted to introduce into the community using this map. That resulted in a beautiful map with unique mechanical features and design tricks, some of which probably haven't been done before, but the layout of the level is not what you would sketch up if you wanted to create a balanced map. Due to said constraints, I probably cannot ever make it perfectly balanced, but I still aim to make it "functional" or "playable" so that the aesthetics can be enjoyed while actually playing a Halo match, rather than just loading up the map to have a look around and have people say "oooh" or "ahhhh". A casual map probably achieves what it intended to achieve, and is much different than a perfectly functional map in that if some gameplay element is not present but fixing it would result in the loss of the aesthetics of the map, the gameplay side is sacrificed. Aside from those comments, perhaps what defines somethign as competitive is having this quality :"if two people have a disagreement about their respective skill levels at halo, a competetive level should provide a great battleground for the dispute to be resolved and in a manner that is consistent from match to match".
The way I perceive it the casual/competitive has arisen from the MLG style of team-play. A heavy focus on team-shooting-friendly spaces and a de-emphasis on power weapons reduces the capacity of the individual and demands coordinated actions to exert control. That puts more value on teamwork and force multiplication. That works well for coordinated competitive environments, but it's often frustrating for MM scenarios, which can often play out more like an FFA with three non-hostiles. I think that's why we've seen a trend toward maps with greater flow disruption and areas more isolated from one another, along with a greater influx of power weapons as well as more powerful spawn weapons. I don't think you can classify a map as casual or competitive per se - that's all a matter of opinion - but I think you can definitively say that some maps favor team-play over individual performance, and that others are the other way around, and that that is generally what people are alluding to when they talk about casual and competitive features. So tl;dr - competitive is team-play focused, casual is individual/Lone Wolf focused Edit: @JKaddict - I think you're looking at more of an aesthetic vs function debate there. I don't think casual is the right way to look at it. I think, and I mean no offense, that maps like that are a sort of third 'novelty' class, along with particularly gimmicky maps like Chiron, or minigame maps. They require a different approach than a traditional map, and generally a specialized gametype. I think casual/competitive refers to the degrees of variation of the standard gameplay. I don't think it's fair to class 'novelty' maps like that, as despite being far from teamshooting firendly, they can be very cleanly competitive. Look at Grifball. It's certainly not Team BRs on Lockout, but it's clearly competitive. It's just a different kind of game. I think aesthetic maps are kinda like that too. With some Star Trek themed gametype suited to the structure I'm sure your map could be competitive. Just not in the MLG sense, and I think that's what people mean when they say competitive. Edit again: I just need to say, however, that I think this is a poor nomenclature to use for map archives. It's too ambiguous. I think the Halo 4 map categories are much better than the ones from Reach.
I think it's very simple because any map and gametype can be "Competitive" as long as there is scoring involve. This may be such a grey area for you but what places the discussion in black and white is what gametypes was the map built for. If it was built for official gametypes than that makes it a competitive map. Non-official gametypes should be considered casual. Now if the map has 10 mantises, 20 railguns, etc. with a very shitty map design does not mean it doesn't belong in the "competitive" genre, it just means it is a competitive map that wasn't forged that good. That puts it in black and white for you all and considering anything else will just have a never ending debate.
ahh now that I've read other threads active in the past day or so, I see where this debate was resurrected, and aptly so! something I thought of while reading fenix hulk's comment there is that "competetive" as used by the gaming community is actually a noun and an adjective. Noun - As in a "competetive" map. the type of map is intended for use when seriously competing between other players and supports typical competetive gametypes. Adjective - "That map does not seem very competetive" which can be that even though it was intended for that type of gameplay, some elements of its design detract from that type of gameplay, and leaves the map less able to be used as a true arena for competition. IDK, maybe it can be a verb too? as in, "hey, I'm going to take your map and competive the **** out of it so you can release it"... lol nevermind
I think it is safe to say that the phrase casual maps is a category that was coined for maps that are poor candidates for competitive game play, nothing else. Having said that, it is more likely than not that a map is considered casual simply if it is not a good candidate for competitive play. To understand the difference between the two categories, one merely needs to know what qualifies for competitive maps and everything else qualifies for casual. I would define competitive maps as any map designed with the intent of presenting a challenge of game play to the individual and the team to demonstrate their abilities and skills as individuals and as a team as a whole. (How that is measured is entirely separate from the maps, and has been shown to evolve in some ways away from player skill to team skill since Halo 2.) Regardless, competitive maps are maps that are designed in such a way that a player can demonstrate skill at Halo FPS. So then the question comes up, can one forge a competitive map in Halo 4 for the playlist? With random ordnance on the map, there is a significant amount of random game play that reduces the quantifying of skill on the map during game play. But keep in mind that these are features of the playlists (which is itself evolving) and not the map. There are a number of maps being created by the community that eliminate the random features of Halo 4, resulting in competitive game play. Update: In the context of other replies, it may also be true that a map must cater to the emotion of competition or challenge, rather than a means to relax. In this sense, any level of challenge would be adequate. But I am thinking that the original question of this thread relates to the general use of the term competitive maps as I have encountered it here at FH and else where.
Describing the map as competitive by how well it supports competitive play is nothing but opinion and keeps this discussion in a grey area. One may think the map supports it well while another disagrees, resulting in an "agree to disagree" or grey area. If the map was designed to play official gametypes, then it's compeitive. How well it supports that "competitive'ness" is nothing short of opinion.
good points, as BTB on many matchmaking games seem to be mostly "causal" gameplay vs a team really trying to work as a team and beat the other team. it's mostly individuals who happen to be allies and sometimes assist each other. occasionally, a competetive game is had on BTB, but honestly it seems more casual because of the frenzied nature of the battles.
But it is grey by definition - by its very nature. Competitive maps can play in both categories. By defining competitive as I did, you can see which maps CANNOT be used in competitive game play, though many can be used in both. I guess my reply is, "you make it sound like a bad thing to have a grey area..."
Yes I do know but the quoted text results again in nothing short of opinion. Some maps will be very obvious and some will be under a very heated discussion, resulting in this grey area and the point of this thread. For your belief behind the standard to determine rather a map is considered competitive results in opinions, not facts. So ultimately someone will have to make the final decision on the maps classification or a mass vote. Either way that results in opinion. Classifying it by what gametypes the map supports is fact. How well the map supports these gametypes should not reconsider the maps' intent which was to be competitive. If the map has poor design, it's still a competitive map but it's just poor in design.
That's just shunting the actual discussion to what competitive gameplay is, and adding an implication that anything outside of that definition of competitive isn't worth quantifying. I think that's where a lot of the drama comes from. You're disregarding a wide array of styles of maps because they don't fit a specific gameplay template. In actuality, every casual map is competitive by definition. It is a place to compete. The nature of the competition, and more specifically the ratio of value of strategy and skill to luck and circumstantial advantage, is what you're trying to quantify here. There can be good causal maps. There can be bad competitive maps. Bad competitive maps are not inherently better than good casual maps. They are simply different styles. I disagree. I don't think that maps that focus heavily on team-play and hence earn the competitive classification support casual gameplay very well. They are often very open and inhibit player movement, leading to stale campy games where teams won't leave their bases because they'll get sniped. In scenarios where cooperation isn't happening, competitive maps are really frustrating.
why can't it be "competetive is good for competetition" (duh) and "casual is where you don't care what the outcome is, so long as you had fun along the way?" so, if two players are equally matched and they want to seriously duke it out to test those skills they both claim to have, a competetive map is used, whereas if they are just hanging out killing time and no one is going to brag about the outcome of the match because the gamplay of that map isn't intended to decide skill level so much as provide fun, that they'd pick a quote "Casual" map.
It's simple really guys, if the map's intent was to support competitive Team Slayer. Then it's a competitive team slayer map. If the map was designed for a competitive racing map then it's a competitive racing map. How well it is designed does not re-categorize the map to something else. If the map pulls off the job poorly, then it just needs to be updated and fixed with testing or it just remains a poorly designed map. What sets the two (competitive & casual) apart is what the maps intended gametypes are (official or non-official).
By that logic there are no casual maps. Just competitive and single player. And you're right - that is the literal meaning. However, I think we're looking to distiguish between different gameplay styles here, and supporting different gametypes. Essentially the same distinction as between Infinity Slayer and Team Throwdown (Slayer BRs - not talking about including objectives).
"Casual" as most would define it is just the lack of "competitive" nature. If the score doesn't matter and having fun is the only goal than any map can be casual by such definition. If we go by terms as coined by organizations like MLG or other such "professional" gamers than "competitive" is a style of map which encourages weapon balance, player movement, and tactical equality between all players where player skill and not map geometry is the only difference. If a map does not fit that style (as subjectively determined by the so called "professionals") then it is a casual map.
This... There are many maps designed with custom gametypes that fall into the casual gender. Like I said, it will be a never ending debate of opinions, only way to solve it is with facts. Well this as well comes down to nothing but opinion. Ragnarok plays like this and has very poor gameplay. It's still a competitive map but the way it is set up doesn't support a whole lot of movement. There are gamers that like to camp in their base and this is still considered competitive in nature. I personally hate the way this map plays but you can't say it doesn't fit under the competitive classification. I just don't like the way it is set up. Now we can go to a in-depth discussion on how competitive maps should be set up but this is only putting walls up on your imagination and again resulting in nothing but one person's opinion of a competitive map for Halo 4.
Hulk, there isn't necessarily a black and white answer here. The point of the thread is to get a lot of differing viewpoints together and to create discussion about the different ones, allowing people to broaden their horizons and come to their own conclusions. Gray area isn't a bad thing, and I don't believe the question can be answered so simply. Your thoughts on the problem are as valid as everyone else's. I've been thinking it over and I've got a few personal points on the idea of competitive and casual. Looking at all game modes and types of maps/ games that can be made in halo, it is easy to see that most of them feature some form of competition as their driving force. Slayer, Flag, Race, Infection, Smashy Chase, Hogs from Heck... all of these feature teams or individuals competing to get the most points or to accomplish some goal. Some maps may be bad, some may be good, but it is their intent to provide competition between players and groups of players. Because so many things feature competition, I feel that it is a poor term to describe maps with.Here are a few categories that do make sense to me. Truly casual maps are those that do not provide competition. These are rare, usually in the form of puzzles (which provide cooperative play or a self-challenge) or mini-games that are not focussed on clearly defined teams fighting each other. I would put Factions in this category because even though many teams fight each other, players change teams frequently and at will and often stop fighting for reasons not controlled by the game mode. In games like these, proving yourself against the enemy is not the point, so I would label these as casual. Maps that are created for the express purpose of playing standard Halo game types such as Flag, Slayer, and KOTH in a way that is standard (not a mini-game or anything using the game types in a way that was not intended) I would call Standard Maps. These maps feature competitive play and would be recognizable to most as the normal way to play Halo, even if the map is somewhat unusual. Fenix Hulk's new map based on a ship with banshees, while unorthodox, would fit into this category by my standard. All standard maps are competitive, whether well designed or not. –A subset of this type of map is what I would consider Ultra-Competitive. These are the MLG or MLG-like maps that are focussed purely on testing player skill against each other, often adhering to strict rules in their designs. These play versions of standard game types and are simply a small section of overall standard maps. Infection maps must have the infection game type and be focussed on the zombie team trying to convert the human team before time runs out in a fashion that is not a mini game. Infection is still competitive, but it's maps are usually designed solely for this game mode and not standard game modes. Linear infection, free roam infection, and holdout infection are all in this category. Mini games may or may not be competitive, and are generally game modes twisted to serve some other purpose than normal. Because of this, they generally get their own category, whether competitive or not. This is my two cents from thinking this over for a little while. To me the key factor in any competitive map is if its main purpose is to pit players against each other in some way or another to compete. Because of this, few maps are truly non-competitive, and so there really needs to be better ways of categorizing them in the first place (something FH has taken a step towards by renaming the competitive map section the standard map section.) My thoughts will likely evolve as the thread grows and I run into more questions, but this is my current perception of it. Edit: Wow, a lot of posts while I wrote this. One thing I think should be said here is that this isn't an attempt to solve a problem, more a thread to generate ideas and allow people to broaden their perspective on the subject. We don't necessarily need an end all answer, I just want people to explore ideas different to their own.
I agree 100% percent and think anything can be competitive. Trying to establish bounds on these grounds can not really be done by having the categories "competitive and casual" but rather "Standard Gametype Maps" and "Custom Gametype Maps." Edit: Also opening your thread with, "It's been debated for a long time what really defines a competitive or casual map" is going to result in a discussion about resolving that.
I think that's the problem. MLG is the yardstick that we hold everything against. We should call it as much. Saying casual and competitive is just obfuscating the point. Tournament and Public or Social would be a better way to classify IMO, as that represents the two styles more clearly. Saying that every map can support casual play while only some can support competitive is very obviously an argument blinded to one viewpoint. You can argue until you're blue in the face that Swordbase was popular because people wanted to exploit it, but eventually you're going to have to acknowledge that what you consider exploitation is legitimate gameplay to someone else, and that it has the capacity to be enjoyed by someone with different tastes from your own. Aka a different style. You could make the argument that CTF only exists because people want an easy objective to hold while padding, and be just as right.
How about green, lol. Yeah I'm pretty blue and think this thread will house nothing more than people's opinions of their "ideal" competitive environment. If you want to come to a conclusion then it's really simple, if not, then blue in the face you guys can get, lol. I will comment no more and let you ladies discuss your politics.