You're putting words into my mouth, I suggest you re-read my post. I didn't say "all terrain maps leave me wanting" I said terrain maps generally don't provide the full package of gameplay I enjoy, and used spellbound as an example. I never said I detest the macro part of the layout, it's probably the most important part. I said that without BOTH macro and micro gameplay a map leaves me wanting. I then gave an example of a map that delivers on both, Seclusion. Everything I've said is pretty much the opposite of lumping all terrain maps together like you suggest I did. So really, the only opinion I shared was that I don't enjoy terrain maps as much as structural maps, so go ahead and keep telling me why my subjective opinion is wrong.
I Re Read your post and damn I miss interpretated it. I guess I don't want Goat to scrap spellbound and it seemed you were unjustly judging it. I don't see it as anymore or any less macro than a lot of structural maps I see including cobalt. (Yet at the time didn't know u didn't like cobalt) So while macro, its not to a fault and seeing how he already uses non terrian structure he could add those small details that just aren't possible with only terrian and add some of those micro details you want.
Fair enough, I don't see a absolute need for them. Just please don't scrap the map due to others views on it.
What if I like how it looks? It's funny I was telling xandy the other night, all I want is to be impressed with people's maps, but there's very few forgers in Halo who have the skill to do that. You're one of them, but you never finish anything. I want you to pump out maps so I can selfishly enjoy them but you never finish anything. You're the reason I'm grouchy all the time lol and given almost never forges so now who do I look at.
Well, I'm in the process of completely redesigning Pipedream from the ground up, I liked the general sort of helix layout it had so I'm keeping that but going to apply some of the little things I've learned since then. I'll post some pictures when I'm more awake.
Well what is it that you like about the visuals? Have you hopped on the latest version? If I know what it is that people like in particular, maybe I'll be able to focus more on that element of it. I like the bulkiness of the rocks but I feel like there are areas where they are too bulky and there is not enough negative space. And I'm at a loss for how to change their designs without changing the geometry.
I just love the castle integration. And you added a few awesome rocks. Hard to explain but I'll be on in a little. You know I like your maps shut up
Ew. And by ew I mean ewmagawd that's awesome. I wish I could forge unique designs but I feel like my specialty in forge is aesthetics and themes. Which granted, I'm not too good at that either. Anywho, thanks Seth for liking my post the rest of you can walk through lava.
3LG. This is your mother. I am publicly grabbing you by the cheeks and shaking you. You in your own head know what the tricks behind the geometry are, you know your own map like Neo reading the code. The brilliance and the tragedy is that you may never fall for your own trickery, you can't fall for the illusion. The flip side is, once your map is functionally finished, EVERYONE ELSE falls under the spell, the illusion IS complete for them. It is EXTREMELY hard for anyone to see it the way you see it. I only caught a small glimpse of how your process and concept of design works through watching you and Demption working and nudging the terrain (so Demp gets it apparently...) But once you finished up a section, the magic closed the gate, and the "immersion" spell was cast, I could not see the "seams" anymore. Also, your very sparing hand on setting in designed areas, the flora, the lighting, the spots where a non-organic wall and floor appear...less is more, and you have a severe hand, but again...this causes an illusion that makes players want more. Just by having a few obviously not just natural terrain locations means this map is a space or location where an intelligent race put things there for a reason...let the reason be a mystery. I prefer clean, light mystery over overwhelming, overly wrought, everything but the bathtub for the sake of IMERSHUN that quite a few developer maps suffer from. So test the maps for game play feedback, but the design aesthetics? The map theory? Just lovely. NO ONE else is doing exactly what you do. So what if a couple of areas are "too bulky"...hey, we ARE playing on floating rocks, no? And again, the illusion is COMPLETE, let other players fall under the spell
Call me goat, I'm scraping my map. On a small scale, the curvy modern architecture works, but at the scale it's currently at, it looks way to overbearing and kind of fugly. Working on something new.
I understand what you're saying and it's a good way to look at it. But I don't think I am unable to fall for my own illusion because I made it. Rather, I have yet to fall for it because it is not actually complete. The art may be in a functional enough state to immerse most people, but they do indeed miss the subtle things that make it a whole rather than a collection of parts. The problem I am having is finishing that "whole" and unifying the map such so that every shape, form and object being utilized compliments one another and isn't unnecessary. My art needs to be streamlined to leave more to the imagination. More mystery, as you put it. Here is an example of the composition I am using throughout the map: When you walk through this tunnel, your eye is trained on these two shapes that repeat. It gives the path a fluid consistency. When you pass through that same area in the opposite direction however, your eyes are trained on these two shapes. Both of these paths need to be illuminated by light to separate them from the darkness of the wall. This technique grabs the player's attention and makes them aware of the geometry. The technique used in the first image is called edging, or framing. The second technique is simply negative space manipulation. On a 2D painting, both of these things are very easy to manipulate. But the map is a 3D space and that means you have to see how one change impacts another. I spent a good 10 minutes rotating a tree and studying the angles it complimented in 180 degrees before I settled on its position, which I then had to adjust to make sure the player didn't bump into it when jumping. I then ended up removing the tree because it clashed with the walls behind it. When i'm frustrated about the way the art looks on my map, it's usually because one of these things are not working. And because I stare at the map for so long, sometimes I don't see the solution myself.
Two more examples of framing: Can you spot them? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All of this is intentional and it wont be finished until the entire map is structurally sound like this.