@purely fat 'Also, the only science in design is physics and experimentation." and psychology. Sorry I had to fix that statement it was bugging me
I missed that even though it is probably one of my main tools when designing. Thanks for catching it.
Thanks for posting. It is interesting to see just how much the design changed once it was in 343's hands to ship. I'd be interested in seeing a similar write-up from 343's perspective explaining the changes and why. One of my biggest complaints about the map is the lower snow section that allows a mongoose rider to make a straight B-line from base to base with the flag. Your design would have avoided that. Can't wait for forge 5 to release next month. I've had a map drawn up and revised dozens of times that I've attempted to put in H4 and H2A and was just never happy with the result. Can't wait to give in a try in Halo 5.
To further iterate on my comment that popularity is not indicative of quality, I do agree that popularity is indicative of reception. However, reception is subjective and completely based on the targeted audience of the original vision for the map. This is exactly why I believe that intelligent and thoughtful articulation of the original vision for the design, followed by a thorough explanation of the design philosophies and pillars that will ensure the intended experience is realized in-game, is essential when presenting your map. It establishes the design goals and ultimately the intended audience for the experience. With my original vision for Recurve, I used design philosophies and pillars that fostered a more competitive atmosphere based on balance. My targeted audience was a more competitive, arena-focused group of the community, which I thought was perfectly justified knowing that Big Team Battle was to be included in the Arena Matchmaking experience in Halo 5: Guardians. Arena is completely based on those same design pillars. Whenever I give feedback during testing, I always first ask the designer to explain their vision. I want to know the intended experience they were planning to deliver, so I can adjust my feedback appropriately based on their design philosophy. Many members of the community often fall into the feedback trap of dismissing a map's merits before understanding the original vision.
I understand what you're saying right here, and I STRONGLY agree. I think it's important for you to outline the experience you were intending to capture with your design, otherwise people might be caught off guard. After all, there are so many different styles of map design throughout Halo as a series, most people look to only the latter few titles for inspiration. I also agree with going into depth about every aspect of your choices and what they offer the gameplay, because these intricacies of maps would most likely otherwise go unappreciated. Ill probably start creating threads for every map i post in Halo 5 that outline why I built the map the way I did, and I encourage everyone to do the same. But sometimes (read: almost always) your posts come off as if you're simply trying to floof up your diction for the sake of it. Because saying The over arching design principles were honed from classical pillars of modern studio influence and legacy arena design theories which I evolved through a series of rapid iteration mass outs for competitive gameplay design tenants, later to be further finalized in a lineage of previously conceptualized art passes Is NOT the best way of describing your design process. And that ^ is how a lot of people are interpreting your posts right now. You've brought up logical fallacies several times now, the most valued and inspirational apologists (people who debate about religion) in the world are the ones who can relay their information in a way that's simple and easy to comprehend. It's what made CS Lewis, Rhavi Zacharias, or Christopher Hitchens so inspirational in their own realms, because people could actually grasp what the **** they were saying. It wasn't the big PHD Atheists or Christian philosophers that just spouted doctoral bullshit. If you truly want to breed an intelligent, discussion based forging community that is open minded, drop the lingo and have a real conversation with us. Because little happens when you're attempting to write a masters thesis on your maps inspiration. Admittedly, you might not even be doing it intentionally (however doubtful that is) but you need to understand that your posts can come off extremely condescending, almost pretentious, whether or not you realize it. And I do it too, I'm a pretty chill guy but lots of times I read my posts on this forum and I can understand why people might think I'm a giant ****ing douche. It sucks, but things just don't translate well in text. Again, I'm glad you posted this. I think learning the insight behind every map is key to enjoying it much more. When you can understand why things are built the way they are and the authors desired gameplay, you appreciate the vision. I did the same thing with trinity and I'm hoping more people do this in the future.
I'm happy that this thread has generated so much discussion and sparked a fire in the community. You could even say it was a fated fire...because of all the bad blood . I agree with Doju--let's get back on topic. Thanks!
@Multi I read my posts and think the same thing. When we had the metal discussion. I realized my terminology for **** was somewhat rude. It was not my intention but it came off that way. @aPK shouldn't you be at beyond. oh wait.
This thread is booming. I like that you created a thread about your design and how it evolved but you don't have to so close minded about the changes. I understand that you were probably attached to it. With that being said, even though 343s version has its issues, i do think it would probably play better and I can't imagine they would have changed it if it didn't, that would be redundant. I think that some aspects from the original design were great in theory but it doesn't matter how sound an idea seems on paper. If it didnt play well and these changes made them feel it was good enough to ship, that's what needs to happen. I think thats reasonable enough despite my lack of college degree in astrology but let the flaming begin. Haha
With 343s track record, I certainly can imagine them changing the map for the worse. What they perceive as "good" is a lot different to most here.
I am by no means closed minded about the changes 343 made to the map. My intention was purely to share my original vision and to clearly explain that 343 developed a new vision after I left. Their new vision for the map definitely has merit with the right tweaks, and I think the community collectively agrees that further edits and balancing is needed to optimize it. As I stated previously, it is very important that we remain respectfully critical of game developers so that they can continue this learning process with us. It's my hope that they will strongly embrace the constructive criticism provided by the community in my discussion threads. I am definitely attached to the original vision as that was my baby, and based on my observations from BTB playtests at the studio, the vision was realized in-game and played as designed. The testers that were part of the target audience greatly enjoyed the gameplay. However, I am able to remove myself from that attachment and objectively criticize the new vision in order to help the 343 Multiplayer Team make it work.
yeah, i thought about that. I guess i look at math differently as it is theorem and not theory. Science has stuff with good evidence to support it but it is not all proven. Where there is no debate in mathematics. I get a little irritated when people talk about science as being based completely in facts. science- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.