@Dweeb @xzamplez Wanted to add onto our discussion from earlier. I respect the people who focus on the gameplay element of level design. I do not think gameplay and art - the geometry and lighting moreso than "aesthetic details" - have to be mutually exclusive, but I can understand the people who either don't want to prioritize it, or don't feel that it's necessary. If you're forging to make maps that play well, then that's cool. I personally think the majority of Halo maps these days play the same (except @MultiLockOn's new map because it has a brand new-to-Halo mechanic on it). If it's room based, you can expect to play it a certain way. If it's atrium, you can expect to play it a certain way. If it is open air, catwalk, bridgework, tower defense, etc. etc. For all the "creative movement" Halo 5 affords, the game doesn't really do anything different. It's Halo, but dumber; therefore, I don't see the point in forging for "gameplay". I think the game is inherently boring. What I do think is interesting though with Halo 5's Forge is that we can finally make "themed" maps, and this is what makes the gameplay exciting for me. When I see a map that makes me feel like I am fighting somewhere, and then it goes to great lengths to immerse me in that environment, then I can appreciate the gameplay. @MartianMallCop's marinara sauce map for instance feels like you're fighting in a european town. Thematically, you expect to jump across rooftops , walk through tight alleyways, shoot across buildings and what not, and I feel like the map does a good job of capturing that. Now whether it plays well or not is one thing, but again - I don't believe "gameplay" and "themes" are mutually exclusive. A map should always be expected to play "well", but a map that goes the extra mile and plays like something is far more impressive. Is it difficult to pull off? Absolutely - it's ****ing hard, especially when you don't even like the game to begin with. But I have much more respect for maps that attempt it, regardless of whether it succeeds or not, and I think the community is much more competitive that way. It's not enough to me to slap "aesthetics" over a random layout. The best maps are the ones that feel like you're somewhere, and play like you would expect that place to play. This is exactly the reason why Halo 5's maps - with all their superfluous detail - feel the same. They're just aesthetics slapped on top of competitive boxes. Yea they play well, but who cares? Let's look at the map Anchor 9 from Reach. It was built in a hangar in space, and Bungie let the players go out in space. Now whether or not you think the map played like **** is one thing - that's simply a failure on their part to design interesting playspace within the hangar. But did it feel like you were in a hangar? Absolutely, and that kind of design is present all over Bungie's maps even going back to Halo CE.
Okay guys, remember that BTB I showed off the other day? It's naming time. I like Hinterland and Boondocks so far. Any suggestions? Remember, the theme is a tree farm in the middle of the desert. Also, trying to get some gameplay up for you dudes but Xbox DVR is being a nuckfut right now. EDIT: heres a walkthrough/warthog run on the map: http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/WeedCough/video/29869681
Totally agree. My process in general doesn't really allow me to make generic blockouts that you can just slap a theme on. To me the aesthetic theme inspires the map geometry itself and I believe that is the way that the most creative and unique maps can even be made. You can clearly see the difference between a map like Highground and a map like The Rig. You could slap any aesthetic you want on the Rig and thus the map is really just boring 90 degree turns and barely even resembles an oil/rig in anything that isn't it's skybox. Contrasting that High Ground is very clearly a base located in a gorge by the beach. It's aesethics and layout combine to create a more meaningful and engaging space to play in. Btw finally got a name for Pueblo_2. It's Tourist Trap now.
@MultiLockOn always asks me what my process is for maps and it's pretty much that. I either start with an appeaing color scheme, a thematic environment, or even just a name. Any of that can inspire gameplay, but obviously as a designer who hates the game and hasnt made many maps, getting the gamelay where i want it isnt easy for me. You can of course start with gameplay encounters and go from there, but itll be much more difficult to art up the map at that point.
For me it's similar. I kinda have this wierd thing where a bunch of ideas really just morph. I think of an encounter but I also think of an environment for that encounter. I literally kinda go.... "Wouldn't it be cool if I can fly around on water slides midair through a bunch of floating islands." Then I kinda just make it happen.
i do the same until it stops making sense, or i'll get attached to the way something looks and can't think of a way to turn it on its head.
i get it I just feel like people limit their design potential with art goals. i wasn't around in reach but people say there used to be crazy maps that were innovative and unique. Perhaps I'm here at the wrong time because that's what I look for. I don't see much of stuff like that. It seems people want to be more safe in their design so they can focus on the art and making sure they can make the theme work. When I do blockouts problems are much easier to solve because I'm open to more options/solutions to problems that won't conflict with possible art goals. I guess since it used to be about mainly gameplay people wanted to make the most interesting gameplay. Now it seems like more people settle with gameplay and try to immerse the player. I agree though maps that can do it all are amazing and that's part of the challenge you guys all compete for. They do standout. I just care for gameplay more. For example seeing an extremely abstract layout with a high learning curve is going to make my **** hard because there are so many options to explore. like the scenarios are endless and every game is different. i like maps that promote a lot of thinking. A lot of both forge/dev maps in this game I feel I can just play on auto pilot. As much as I talk about bladerunner hereafter is definitely special. It's art and the concept of the how the map works is different. The gameplay is flexible as well. I really want to see you spend time on that. I have only played one game on arcanum and the other team kept falling off, (the 1 kid was retarded) but the map does it all. Visually, and the key concept is awesome. It gives the map so much depth. The fact that heads up wasn't in matchmaking and Shurima and Malta was... If Malta and shurima were minimalist then I feel no question heads up is getting chosen. But maybe not I GUESS WHAT IM SAYING IS I DONT WANT PEOPLE TO SETTLE WITH THEIR GAMEPLAY BECAUSE THEY MET THEIR ART GOALS
Halo 5 is garbage dude. I get that you used to play the game and you like playing the game, but I honestly don't think anything in this game will be interesting to play. None of the weapons are fun or balanced to use, the power ups don't do anything cool and the combat revolves around janky abilities. Why push for maps that make you think when the game is inherently mindless? Arcanum is cool because it's essentially built around a brand new pick up, and we haven't really seen that kind of thing since Halo 4 with trait zones where people were doing acid pits. But in the end, the game is doing the map a disservice. The developers have done **** all for Forge playlists and the pros don't want to play on Forge maps, therefore I honestly don't see the point in breaking gameplay barriers. It comes across as incredibly pretentious to me stemming from the fact that Forge used to be an object manipulator and not an actual level creator. Like, literally all you could do back then was gameplay, but at least the games played fine. I didn't insinuate earlier that I was "settling" for gameplay. I just don't care to design for a game that neither has any depth nor a future for its community. I'll humor you for a second though This was the image that inspired Blade Runner, although back then it was just a simple layout based around this. I built it in MCC as a Forerunner map and carried that over to Halo 5, until I decided to try to palette swap the theme to Vex. A theme can obviously affect the way the map is designed. When it was Forerunner, I was less likely to make changes to it, and that's why I switched to something more flexible. But I still don't understand why you're fond of the map because to me the gameplay was just more of the same. Like, I could see that in any other Halo and it'd play at most better than it did in Halo 5, but that's about it. The dullest maps can still be fun if the game is interesting to play, but the most interesting maps wont matter in a dull game.
In all honestly I agree but I do it just to see the design as a whole knowing I was able to make it work. If halo 6 is good LUL I want to have solid designs ready
The bladerunner thing has always been kind of a joke. I really just say it because there is no terrain. Not taking away from the map thats why I always brought it up. Your best map to me is hereafter
Hereafter definitely would have been cool. The gameplay on that was just as important as the art. But that map would obviously be held back by being in Halo 5. This game doesn't have fall damage, health pick ups or custom powerups so that automatically makes less interesting than Reach for level design. And to top it off, you have abilities that encourage players to move wherever they want, making level design a constant check and balance of figuring out where players should be going on the map. I frankly can't stand it. If you fall down from the highest point on the map, you should die, period. Ground pound is ****ing stupid for what it does for level design.