My Original Vision for Recurve

Oh thank god , I was about to get really edgy lol

 

Jesus, I hate this latest buzz word.

And honestly Fated, this could just be me nitpicking, but christ almighty can you lay off the overly hyped up lofty adjectives for everything you do? It sounds like the most obnoxious of canned bullshit a PR rep would spit.

 

But forge looks like a PS2 game. Only 343 knows how to make a real map look good.

 

i'm sorry but heroism is silly word to me to describe risk versus reward. I laugh every time I read it. Also if you could figure out a way to make those middle walls on your version more structural make them seem more connected with the theme of your structure. I think that would raise the appeal of this map even more.

On what schnitzel said, you don't have talk the talk if you can walk the walk. You are already well known and most people respect your opinion. Also, all these things you mention are important but they are also subjective. You might think that there is a right way to do something but someone else might not agree. So, being technical and acting as if there is a specific way to do it only hurts those that don't understand map design as much as you because they look at your opinion on it and think that is the way it has to be done and they trap themselves in a box. Which is ultimately the worst thing a designer or artist can do because there is no innovation. Also, 343 is trash at map design. They are getting better but they still need to get over all this **** you can get stuck on that ruins the flow to their maps.

I just wanted to say this because I often find you and psychoduck are guilty of this.

Also, the only science in design is physics and experimentation.

 

Well said. Coming out of the MLGFF scene, I can't agree more. The whole "only one way" approach really hampered my ability as both a level designer and a player to truly grasp the intricacies and possibilities of level design. It really isn't a science. There is no one "right way", or even anything similar to it. Level design is grossly subjective, and we as a community need to embrace its subjectivity and shun narrow mindedness as a whole.

 

I just want to say thank you for your content Fated. A key to designing things such as maps for me is to study other’s designs and techniques. I have to tell you, getting an intelligent and thoughtful breakdown from the author is incredibly helpful. At no point did I feel you were trying to dole out the only way to design, just explaining your design choices in a thoughtful manner for us to ponder and incorporate as we see fit.

I have trouble wrapping my mind around the notion that this type of explanation of design intent is somehow worse for less experienced forgers than treating guidelines as something taboo. I feel the worst thing a designer can do is stop designing, which is a typical byproduct of a field of design having terrible guidelines to work off of. Keep the design talks and map design vision posts coming man, a new generation of forgers will need your positive contributions.

 

You writing style can put people off sometimes. I just wanted to clear the air on that because it sometimes comes off that way. I know that is not how you feel as I have talked to you enough but someone who is learning might misunderstand that is why I said what i said. Science is nothing but experimentation but sometimes people misunderstand science as fact when it is mostly theory. I would never think you are talking down to me and I never find it condescending unless you are arguing with someone who is being irrational. That is why I made the post.

I figured you wanted people to jump on the walls. I have literally been thinking for 3 days about how to make those walls fit more together with the map.

I actually like find the fun more because something doesn't have to be heroic to be enjoyable. The players create the heroics. The map itself doesn't have to and can create an issue within the map if you are trying to force it on a player but that is all apart of the learning process and there is nothing wrong with having those types of map features. It as long as it is not a necessity in the map. I'll give war crap about it later.

P.S. I also plan on doing a video and article that is going to talk about what we discussed right here in the future. The subjectivity of map design and a major part of it has to do with Einstein's violin. I love good discussion.

That is you. There are others who get caught up in a certain way as being the right way. The reason I said what I said is because of how good fated is at elaborating his thoughts and how he is very influential to the majority of the forgers who started in halo 4 or later. I am guessing you don't know of me otherwise you would not have needed to write the second paragraph. As i am a major believer of absorbing as much knowledge and stealing as many concepts as possible as a designer. I said this with past experience as most forgers stick to their group who usually has an alpha male forger and whatever he or she thinks is the ultimate word and would and will not accept something different.

That last sentence sounds ridiculous even though it is true. lol

 

this whole thing is incredibly ridiculous. fated with the PR defensive mode, the nit picky critiques over the direction 343i took his map, the loving for fated's definitive explanations, fated explanations practically regurgitated from other forgers without credit given, all of it. its honestly gives me a headache to read.

honestly fated, i don't think you need to defend yourself over the changes 343i made, the biggest issue with their re-design of mid is how closed off sniper side is, a part from that everything else about the map is mostly nitpicking over how it isn't this "squad theory style" that psychoduck came up with and has been pushing since h4. it being more based around classical halo btb style isn't a negative and it irritates me to see it being treated as such, especially at the same time you're quite happy to say there are different ways to build a map.

recurve for the most part is a decent map, if you moved the bases more centered so vehicle travel time from base to base on each path is a bout equal, put a ramp to connect where lazer is to tank instead of it being a drop off to allow vehcilure movement down there, widened the trench, open up the whole sniper side and allowed vehicles to travel around the back of sniper i think is all that's needed to make the map strucutally play better. the weapon balance is a bit out but a part from that everything else about the map is pretty solid. there is enough space for light vehicles to easily maneuver around and enough cover so they aren't going to be a constant easy target. the cover set up around the center i've found to provide a good balance between infantry and vehicular battle, it provides enough cover to be able to challenge vehicles but doesn't provide to much where vehicles are useless. there isn't too much of a focus on vehicles or infantry and a nice balance somewhere in between. as i said the only issue really is the whole sniper side, because its insanely isolated from the rest of the map it provides a nice prime camping spot for the entire team looking over most of the map with only 3 ways in ignoring jumps, overall a decent map and i prefer it a lot more over the **** that is basin.

looking at the images you've provided for your vision of recurve i think 343i took it in a better direction, based on the images it looks like there is too much of a focus on infantry combat with the vehicle movement options mostly forcing the vehicles into either very tight paths under the bottom mid structure which is a nade/boarding/teamshot heaven against vehicles or very open space which doesn't provide any options for people using vehicles to actually do. most of the gameplay flow would be focused around the middle structure with a lack of vehicles in sight. this is fine if you prefer infantry battle but BTB is all about the vehicles, vehicles is what separates btb from being a giant cluster **** of an up-scaled 4v4 arena. because off the vehicles you need to provide adequate space for them to move around, places for them to somewhat evenly interact with infantry and cover to utilize otherwise you're overly nerfing, or excluding a part of halos sandbox from really the only gametype it is used in, which in my opinion is one of the dumbest things you can do as a map designer.

 

Don't get me wrong Fated, I'm not hating on your writing style, I'm raising concern over how it comes across like you're trying way too hard to sell your maps. As Purely had put it, anyone can talk the talk, it's walking the walk that matters. Dial back marketing your maps a bit and just let them speak for themselves. They don't need you to sell them, they should sell themselves.

I'm not saying this to seem spiteful, it's just what I've learned over the years that such an approach makes for better relations with people in the community. I learned that the hard way, as I used to be like you, always marketing my maps and hyping them up, while at the same time trashing other people's maps. It just isn't a very agreeable way to interact with your peers, and it's something I'm still paying for today. If you don't like some one's map, you don't trash it and say X is bad when really, X is subjective. If the map is playable and free of exploits, it's over arcing quality is subject to the individual's interpretation. You can express your concerns to the designer, but certainly don't let it come across as you're trying to persuade others that X trait is bad or Y trait is good.

TL;DR
Maps should speak for themselves, they don't need forgers to do the talking. If a map is exemplary, people will play it more often in their customs and it'll get around on its own.

 

Honestly, I'm not even all that bothered by the overal design of the map at this point. It's a pretty decent map, and I'm enjoying playing on it more. There are little tweaks to be made here and there that COULD improve the gameplay on it. My main issue, however, is that a lot of the forging is downright sloppy and inconsistent.

 

I have similar feelings about the map as well schnitzel. The things that irritate on the map is mostly sloppy bumpiness, where weapons are and clutter in spots.

 

Fat, I suppose once I get a better feel of the messiahs of this community I’ll better understand how one's reflection on design concepts can be mistaken for gospel.

SecretSchnitzel, it seems that Fated and Psycho are merely stating that X is worse than Y because of Z. As a designer if we don’t agree with Z, isn’t it better to discuss and refine Z into a solid and agreeable guideline instead of advocating against any type of theory in areas of subjectivity for the community?

Also, isn’t it better to have diversity in discussion about forge? Why would you call for less of an academic approach to design theory when it is a lacking part of our community? I don’t know of a place with academic dissertations on Forge, so what makes a community dedicated to designing maps for Halo a bad place for that type of content?

 

There are no "messiahs" of the forge community. There are seasoned designers, and there is everyone else. No real class distinction. There aren't bad forgers, only inexperienced forgers.

Stating X is worse than Y because of Z is fine and well, but that Z will almost always be something subjective. I'm not saying we shouldn't be open to debate about design theory and different aspects of maps, I'm saying we should never accept Z as some sort of empirical law. Interpreting what is good or bad about a map is extremely subjective, and no forger should parade their personal design philosophy as the "right one". Unfortunately, that's not way tends to happen in the forge community. There are a lot of egos in the community, and a lot of people want to force their beliefs down everyone else's throats.

Now there's a time and place for academic writing.... This just really isn't it. However, I do agree that there is a lack of academic approach, but that's mostly due to forgers having learned primarily from other forgers and their own trial and error. There's a wealth of literature on the subject of level design out there, but few and far between in the forge community have actually taken the time to read anything past Joel McDonald's guide. If forgers want to get academic and cite various professionals and their publications, I welcome it fully. Interestingly enough, they'll find themselves realizing how much emphasis professionals place on how subjective level design really is, which would be a boon upon this ego filled community.

 

what you're calling a logical fallacy is quite literally the issue this community had in reach and h4 under previous management. it was all about who made what rather then how good it was back then, if no one knew who you were it was a struggle to get notice, get feedback or even people to really acknowledge you outside of schelduled testing lobbies. it isn't a logical fallacy but a worry about reverting back to old habbits and people trying to prevent it.

instead of it being based on popularity it should be about maps speaking for themselves. it really shouldn't matter who made what or who says what but it looks like this attitude is going to resurface, i'm already seeing certain circles come around and bad talking each other behind their backs without any general consideration of actual merit to the others creations or if the reasoning behind it is good.

you really can't call what i've witnessed first hand, and currently watch return a "logical fallacy"

edit because fated replied in his previous post?? ..:
"@A Haunted Army You misunderstand. I am stating that popularity does not determine quality, and the best way to direct focus to your map design is by intelligently and thoughtfully articulating the vision. To engage in design theory discussion, testing, and feedback exchange. Simply posting a map and hoping it will "speak for itself" without any input from the author is more so an excuse to remove yourself from the methodical level design process."

that's not really accurate though, even if you engage in meaningfull discussion it won't matter, if you're not popular people are not going to listen to you and its been the sad truth of the forge comunities history. the people that got fed up with this behaviour ended up over at THC (the halo council for those who weren't around before the whole mutany creating BE drama killing THC), you started off over at THC where the forgers there tried to foster the very community experience you're describing now but for the wider community it sadly has never held true, only a small minority of us actually went by that.

the point being is that we shouldn't go out and try and advertise our maps with fancy buzzwords and everything to try and get attention, a good map once released should get most of its attention based on the merits of the map and not because of the person behind it that made it. the whole intellectual discussion part comes during the work in progress phase before the map gets released where we're constantly testing, iterating and discussing to find out the best direction to take the map in. historically though, if you were popular everyone notable in the community would jump in and try and say how much "quality" your map had. you've just never been around to actually witness this first hand.

popularity doesn't equal quality but the community sure as hell ends up treating it that way, if someone is popular they're bound to make good maps right??? hoping it doesn't become a big issue again.

 

What an odd criticism, how dare a forger try advertise a map and explain the thought process into it. Sure Fated could do it in a different way, but odd to attack that.

And yes Haunted, the discussion aspect of things takes place in the progress stages. However, this is a very different scenario, they were invited to 343, and were asked to design a map there. They couldn't exactly share and discuss map designs with us beforehand, thus eliminating that stage. There is also the fact that 343 altered the map from his original design, the map has received a lot of negative reviews in the community. Those not aware that 343 altered the map will think Fated simply created a bad map, and hurt his credentials as a designer. Of course he wants to defend the map lol!

Regardless of how Fated goes about with his thesaurus usage, active discussion from anyone in this community should NEVER be discouraged.

Thats life. If you are new to the community, why should you be given the same treatment as an experienced forger? To help get your maps out, take part in discussion, critique other people maps, advertise your map in a polite and respectful manner. Network correctly. Show signs you are listening to others. Eventually your quality will speak for itself. Ive seen many no name forgers work their way up in the last few years.

Some people want to talk about their designs, some people want to go into deep discussions with otheres, some just want to post maps. We should be encouraging people to go about their hard work in different ways.

 

to be clear, i was only replying to fated's logical fallacy comment. i was trying to explain how the notion of maps should speak for themselves isn't based on a logical fallacy but came about because of how the community acted in the past which fated quite nicely described as being the "logical fallacy". it is something that did happen but since h4 and tmcc where the games have been broken for so long it killed off most of the community it hasn't been an issue.

i'm not trying to discourage discussion, my advertising comment is more aimed at how people would go around outside of their map post and try and plug there maps into as many discussions as possible in order to try and get as much attention as possible.

because it should be about making good maps not the people behind them.

sorry for derailing the topic, lets try and get back on topic shall we?

 

There is some great discussion and I just wanted to quickly make sure people realize that every side of the argument has its own merits. Whether or not you agree with them, you can always learn from everyone else's perspectives and perhaps evolve your own.

I personally appreciate active discussion and I've personally been working to shift my one missteps in the past around popularity. There's something to be said about being active in the community, throwing out your map to be played, but not shoving it down people's throat. If it catches fire awesome, if not... move on and try again. You can take pride in your own work, but the end result is if you put it in people's hands and they drop it, you need to either evolve it or drop it yourself. Ignore how the world perceives you, it is about how they receive the content and nothing more. We are all here to add to the quality and variety of content to play in the world of Halo. So keep adding content and stop adding resistance to others adding content.

 

Could you be any more dense mate? Are you really arguing that the average gamer lacks the intellectual basis required to make an informed decision on whether or not they enjoy a map? No, popularity doesn't determine quality, but it does determine reception. We develop maps for a video game, that people will enjoy. That is the underlying factor. It's "where is the fun".

No, this approach doesn't lend to a more competitive, ego driven community. Heavy handed marketing campaigns where you feel it is your obligation to tell people why your map is good and why the should like it that does. The approach of letting maps speak for themselves and embracing that quality is subjective is the anti-thesis of an ego driven community, while your particular approach exemplifies ego driven. Of course you were right in one regard, popularity within the forge community, does not determine quality, but that is mostly because of individuals with bloated egos and the prevalence of cliques. @PurelyFat has it right with his explanation of cliques and Alpha forgers, and you and Duck are sitting fat and happy as Alphas of your particular group with your little peons that take your every word as gospel.

We can discuss the reasoning behind design decisions and our over arcing design process, and it is encouraged. We should stay away from heavy-handed approaches, however, where we dictate that a map is good because of said processes. When you take such a heavy handed approach, you're doing nothing more than stroking your own ego at the expense of others.

You can be a great guy Fated. You understand level design pretty damn well, but your ego makes you a difficult person to get along with these days. You need to learn to accept that no, you're particular design theory is not the be-all-end-all design theory, and there is a lot of subjectivity to the quality of a map. You need to learn to play nice with your fellow level design enthusiasts and to stop talking down to them.

Good discussion is not talking to someone, it's talking with someone. It's a two-way channel of communication, and yours as of late exemplifies the opposite.