A Letter to Forgehub

Multi. Dude. Man. Bro.

Oblivion is too dark. I've played it on two different TVs and watched gameplay on my computer. The darkness doesn't allow players to easily figure out the basic layout of the map. No, I'm not saying that players should necessarily be able to understand all the intricacies of a layout on the first play through, but they should be able to understand basic routes and connections, something I still don't have a great grasp of having played the map multiple times and having flown around it for hours in forge. Oblivion's layout is not the most intuitive in the world, you can't argue that. It has a certain degree of complexity that is hindered in its ability to be easily figured out by the dark and very contrasting lighting on the map.

 

Pretty much exactly how I would explain it if I knew what I was talking about.

 

So you just indirectly admitted that you've never played the map. Not once. Never even loaded it up. EDIT: But you still think you understand it...

Even I could explain why the map is so strong, and I've openly admitted that it isn't perfect. I hate the Chapel room, but that is essentially the only weak part of the map. Watching gameplay does nothing for you. Especially if you are watching people who don't know how to play the map to it's strongest ability. I can't believe you actually judged this map poorly based on absolutely no understanding of any elements of gameplay. You can criticize Multi all you want, but he'll at least load the map up and explain... jesus.

@AceOfSpades I know what you're saying, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but you also have to realize that the map being a little too dark doesn't impact the design itself by any means. It is the same mind numbing argument people tried to use in H2A about "depth perception" on metal maps. Give me a break lmao. You don't need to understand a map on 1 or 2 play throughs. To me, that means there is relatively no depth to it. The only way you'll master a map is if you study it, and practice it. That is how it has been since CE, and people are still discovering things to this day about some of those maps. Also, in H5, the player model is always illuminated, so it's not like people are blending into shadows. Anyway, the main point is that darkness is separate from physical design. Yes it can influence gameplay, but only at first. It's a hurdle you can easily jump over. Especially on oblivion, it's not nearly as dark as it's made out to be. Legion was dark man lol Oblivion is just moody at most.

@Kell Of Scots So you acknowledge the first movie is better objectively, but you like the second one better. So would it be fair to say the second one is a worse movie? Yes. Would it be fair to just say it's subjective? No, because then nothing is solved or proven, and we might as well all be apes flinging dung at each other. But that's just my subjective opinion! Okay, okay, I'm kind of trolling, but you get my meaning. You and I don't disagree.

@SaltyKoala since we're designing for Halo, we might as well acknowledge the main game mode as the primary means for proving a map. Who cares about other games when we're isolated in Halo? Wipe that from your mind. If score limits aren't being reached, it's most likely because the design itself allows for players to avoid conflict to a certain degree. That in and of itself is problematic. Like on Lockout, two teams can sit across from each other and do absolutely nothing, because the team winning at the moment can sit in place and just wait for the disadvantaged team to push. And since the disadvantaged team has very limited options to push, the gameplay is super predictable and stale. Now I like Lockout, but I can admit it's a bad map. Dismissing things as subjective is just ignoring current issues.

@A 3 Legged Goat You shouldn't rank a map based on what it sets out to do, because then you would end up with stupid results being labeled as good. For instance, Let's say Overgrown's design goals were to always split spawn players, and replicate a 2D encounter to play out the exact same in every single area on the map. It does that quite well, but if that was the goal, is that a good map? No. Obviously there are numerous variables to consider like player count, but overall, objectively good gameplay is possible and achievable no matter what style of map you create. If you don't understand what the criteria is, you need to study the gameplay, and make note of what can be improved. I can't just sit here and type up a bible of what makes designs superior based off desirable gameplay criteria, because it would be far too long to explain everything in enough detail to not be misinterpreted. Also, I'm not fully capable of doing so. I don't have all the answers, but my subconscious usually tells me something isn't right, while I'm building. That is why it takes me ages to finish projects.

Also, I'm starting to hate having to say objective and subjective. You've all ruined those words for me. Now they join the ranks of "aesthetics". *cold shiver down spine*

 

XzampleZ never judged Oblivion. It wasn't built until well after that contest.

 

@Dunco no one ever tags you cus' you are not relevant.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 11, 2017 ---

**** you buddy

 

@Given To Fly I get your argument. That doesn't take away from the fact that I still don't get some of the basic pathing on the map. It is not really clear in some places where you're going. Part of that blame is placed on the lighting. Part of it is placed on the fact that natural terrain all looks the same and blends together because of the color. I'm not saying you're wrong when you say you shouldn't immediately be able to understand the whole map on the first playthrough, but I think the art direction, which is beautifully executed from a purely art standpoint, hinders the readability of the map to a pretty decent extent.

I think it's important that Multi knows every viewpoint about his map, good and bad. He doesn't have the agree with them, but if more than just a couple of people are saying something, he should at least note it and keep it in mind, instead of just shutting it down. These are things you need to think about working on an actual game that people will buy. And the simple fact is that if a map isn't accessible to new players, it's going to be written off as a bad map because a lot of players will have a hard time learning the map, and they won't have fun.

Oblivion and Legion can certainly be exempt from this thinking, since they weren't necessarily made to be played on by thousands and thousands of very different players. But stuff Multi is going to be making at Treyarch will be, and the masses' need to be taken into account.

 

@Given To Fly I directly admitted I never played the map. I didn't imply otherwise. The feedback I had didn't require playing the map. But, as I said, it's an opinion shared by people who have played it.

You say he'll explain, but I haven't heard him say a single reason Angst is bad, besides cheap comments like generic. I apologize if I don't find that to be substantial feedback.

I had legitimate constructive criticism, and explained how it negatively impacts gameplay.


@MultiLockOn It's a video without a filter.

 

@MultiLockOn you ever thought about using one of the sand terrains instead of the Asteroid terrain on Oblivion? I think it'd still look nice, but provide some more contrast between the terrain and the rocks. I'm partial to the Depths sand over the Barrens sand, but they'd both be interesting to try I think.

 

I believe it's important to single out why a map isn't reaching score limit, among what player base and in what situations. If lockout didn't reach it's kill limit beacuse players couldn't locate each other, I'd call it a bad map. If lockout didn't reach score limit for the bull of players in the MM environment, I'd call it a bad slayer map. Neither of those are the case.

Lockout isn't a "bad" map simply because it forces a singular style of play that can stagnate in slayer matches at a high level. Its like you expect a map to be everything and do everything at once. That's just ludicrous. I absolutely HATE judging maps as singular entites. Rather a games MAP POOL should be judged and we should label a map pool good or bad depending on if it is diverse enough to promote multiple ways of playing the game and YES that should include maps that should force players to play in very specific ways, which lockout did wonderfully.

 

Oblivion is not too dark. Spartans are running neon lights anyway.

This is just an aesthetics opinion. I'm not a designer so please spare me.

 

Oblivion is one of the strongest thematic maps in the game. It's a brilliant showcase of art and Forge's capabilities with its solid construction, and the work put into the lighting is exceptional. By most tokens it is a well presented map, and it inspired me to completely change the way I forge in this game.

But playing the map you will find yourself falling off constantly, disoriented on the majority of your spawns, and unnaturally restricted in your movement because the pathing is as unintuitive as it comes because of how many thin ledges you need to maneuver around. And that's on top of the fact that the map is really dark. The lighting was changed right after the map released (which is also when it started to get framerate) and now there are areas where it's impossible to see because the screen literally turns black. Within the context of Halo, I have never liked playing the map because you fight the map more than the player.

High Guard is another incredibly Forged map from its technical precision to its thematic design. Anyone could mistake it for a Halo dev map and the sacrifices made to present it in Forge do not really take away from the holistic presentation in my opinion.

Layout wise, the pathing has gone through too many iterations to count and I've seen many of the original designs up until its release. The sided areas are very well designed, but the map falls apart for me in the center where there is literally one hard connection between the sides. Moving between one half or the other usually involves jumping over railings, which I don't find intuitive either. In my experience on the map, players are either cross mapping or split spawning and fighting side to side, which can be seen as a cool dynamic - and I'd certainly praise it for being different - if it didn't seem unrefined. There are earlier versions of the map that I feel would have lent themselves to this kind of gameplay better than the final release.

Both of these maps are still well made and I would never miss a beat to share them to showcase the possibilities of Forge. And there is absolutely no mistake that their authors are talented Forgers. But this idea of objectivity really needs to be extinguished or it's just going to drive a wedge between people and discourage collaboration. None of these maps would exist without the input of other members in the community who may not necessarily share these absolutist views.

 

The majority of the feedback on ForgeHub has historically been conjecture based on the screenshots or videos, especially in recent years where it's been difficult to view people's maps. But Xzamples doesn't need to play Oblivion to say the map is dark or disorienting anymore than Multi needs to play Angst to say it looks boring to him. Both of them are just looking at media.

 

I haven't played a game on Oblivion that didn't revolve around melees, grenades or power weapons because the pistol fights are interrupted by the geometry everywhere except the very middle of the chapel. If you want, we can remove all of those things and play the map with just pistols, and perhaps that will change my own mind.

 

I don't think maps should play everything at once. It's honestly a stupid trait of Halo and Destiny maps that leads to designs that have no business being in certain game modes. Lockout Slayer is one of those in my opinion.

I believe high level gameplay is the way a map really plays. On my map Spellbound, the majority of the playtests used the entire map and the gameplay was fun and mostly what I expected it to be. But when more competitive players played the map, they camped the red tower and the map revolved entirely around shooting into there. The fact that everyone who didn't experience that kind of gameplay enjoyed the map, while people who did experience it raised the issue, leads me to believe that the map had a fundamental problem.

The tower on Spellbound was obviously intended to be a power position that you could defend to an extent. There is nothing wrong with a map that promotes tower defense, which is the very identity of Lockout, so I wouldn't say that is inherently bad design.

I've heard criticism of Spellbound relating to things like "racetrack" or "boring rooms", but that comes down to a matter of opinion based on an individual's preference. Stagnating gameplay however is a legitimate problem that I don't believe can be debated. I haven't seen anyone advocating for maps to play the same way, but a map shouldn't devolve into one singular strategy unless that strategy has plenty of counters.

Fortunately, Spellbound did this with the teleporter and the size of the doors, and the revisions of the map would have fixed the issue entirely. As for Lockout, I don't think the map encouraged alternative strategies well enough, and it could have very easily done so with simple geometric changes.

I'm obviously not trying to say Spellbound was a better map than Lockout, but since most people here have played it, I figure it's a fair point of comparison given the similar issue.