On another note, if I ever forge another map I'll be too damn scared to show you bastards that's for sure.
@xzamplez All you're doing is deflecting and refusing to take any sort responsibility for any of the ridiculous claims you've made in the past in attempt to come off as some moral middle ground to anyone reading this conversation. Your opinions on level design have been insanely close minded historically. "Who's right? Nobody, really. You could throw things in a map, and have players move around it like molasses, and some would still find enjoyment in it. Hence, the subjectivity of map design. I am only telling him my perspective." This is exactly what I'm speaking to, you've backtracked on every agreement we've made on what defines a good map just to appeal to this ridiculous "Every map has value! Everything can be good!" SJW sympathizer mindset, and it's just not true. Especially when we agree to speak on level design quality (and we're speaking in circles here) you have no right to say that nothing can truly be considered bad and then turn around and call something good. It's hypocritical bullshit with no basis and you're using this flip flopping to weasel your way out of any agreement we've made. "I'm just going to have to continue to disagree, man. We look for the same thing in the sense that we look to find and create maps that meet our definition of a "good map", but a good map means something different to each of us. Our Angst vs Oblivion discussion is a pretty great example of that." Lol, no. Everything we've said has been in agreement on paper, until it comes to the real world and your preferences show through. Let's pretend that we agree that both Loading Zone and Angst are both perfectly competitively viable at the highest level of play. Both of which are exactly as viable as Amplified and all 3 of the mentioned maps show the exact same amount of potential for mental depth in a pro match. The ONLY difference here is that Loading Zone would be 10x the map as Angst on the simple fact that it actually is something different than a rehashed design. The creator of Amplified is not as good of a designer as the creator of Midship, because the design was already established. Very little thought had to go into it. The same merit applies to any designer who creates a competitively viable map that actually offers a breathe of fresh air. But you've historically been radically against ANY map that falls outside your preference of generic room-by-room-by-room formula. "The difference between you and I is that I don't think you need to "break barriers" to create original content." Then your content isn't original. "I'd rather not go back into the judging conversation. It's just run its course. You aren't happy with the results. I get it. Hazard was mostly Seth's map btw." Okay now you're actually starting to aggravate me because you're intentionally dodging the question as if it meant something else. I SPECIFICALLY SAID I'M NOT BRINGING THIS UP TO HARP ON THE RESULTS but rather to show that you have gone on paper to say "THIS is the style of map that is good. I official give it my blessing. It is a better design than maps that were not chosen" when looking at motherfucking Hangar as opposed to dozens of other entries in the doubles contest that were much better designs that not only played better but pushed boundaries. That is horseshit. There was no reason to choose a map like that especially because it didn't even play better by every measure we've agreed upon, but other maps were discredited on account that they were too "awkward" for you. "Like I said: I'm not saying awkward just because I feel like it. Those things provide awkward experiences. It's just as logical to ignore those feelings as it is to pretend a LoS, or connection, or power position doesn't exist on the map." WHAT?!?!? No it's not, because awkwardness is a completely arbitrary SUBJECTIVE feeling (that's the correct usage of the word) that doesn't even truly exist in any physical form. Sightlines do. Power positions do. This is essentially you saying that your discomfort in a certain spot is akin to hard balancing, which is bullshit. "Your boss wants you to make maps that don't create such a large skill gap, since Call of Duty has a massively casual player base. Excessive verticality is one of the ways you do that. I have no idea where the threshold of excessive verticality lies. Apparently it's eleven feet." I could take this very same logic and apply it to everything you've ever made and call it casual accessible garbage with no skill gap. You're promoting the very same principles that you attribute to them, only you might be a few steps ahead of Call of Duty. COD developers saying "wah 12 feet is awkward" is no different than you crying about a path that isn't flat, or a teleporter that isn't green. You see that right? You are unnecessarily limiting your own perception of what level design can be AND promoting it to others as if it's a noble position. It's not, you're no different than every forger in H2A or H3 who was afraid of any meaningful verticality. Move past it. " I am open-minded. But, when I feel a feature provides an awkward experience, I will be inclined to be against it. I'm not going to ignore my own logic and instinct. " Then you're not open minded. If an arbitrary feeling that you can choose to ignore is preventing you from seeing the actual geometry of the map as you say you do, then you are close minded. Like I said. You are a living breathing human breathing with a working brain. And you're telling me that the Legion teleporter is the most awkward thing you've ever experienced . I've played Legion with some REALLY bad players who instantly picked it up, it's not hard. You're just remaining close minded, don't you see that? "It's a band-aid solution, because the source of the problem is Labyrinth. Instead of addressing that, you made it connect to the coffin room in an inconvenient way so it would take more time for players to get back to it." Lmao. The Labrynth is in place to flush people from camping the chapel. That's why it's there, that's why the exits exist above the ground level so that Chapel players can't just react in a second and hop up top. That would be counter balancing for what, so that "you didn't feel weird". If you're in the chapel and want to challenge one of the outside peaks you can take 2 seconds to jump up top, it does what it needs to do perfectly. This is literally the perfect example of you NOT looking at the raw geometry for what it is, like you say you do. But rather just falling prey to your initial emotions and refusing to learn.
@A 3 Legged Goat My response to that is the same I said to Given. The average listener and the enthusiast will look for two different things in music. Which is right? Like you said: It depends on the audience. @Xandrith I'll respond to this, but if you can't communicate without some little insult thrown in from here on out, I won't respond. Just letting you know beforehand. Yes, I understand the perspective. But it isn't accurate in my case. I welcome new or uncommon things. But, if they don't provide an experience I enjoy, then that's all there is to it. Some people won't enjoy playing a map with three speed boosts, and that's fine. I said it wasn't common practice, because it's awkward. Multi said something similar to Career previously: You're supposed to fight the players, not the map. Traversing the map can feel like an obstacle course at times. Here's where people that don't understand say something along the lines of "skill gap" or "map knowledge". And the cycle repeats. There's literally no contradictions in any of my statements. I'm sharing my perspective in a subject that is entirely subjective. I am not applying my opinions or standards to anyone else.
"There's literally no contradictions in any of my statements." - @xzamplez Your so called objective approach "You are more balanced in your approach, where I am heavily leaning on the functional aspect of design. The way you breakdown visuals is the way I break down geometry. A map can look boring as hell, but still have a concept that sets it apart from other maps." Non objective approach "I'm not saying awkward just because I feel like it. Those things provide awkward experiences. It's just as logical to ignore those feelings as it is to pretend a LoS, or connection, or power position doesn't exist on the map." "I am open-minded. But, when I feel a feature provides an awkward experience, I will be inclined to be against it. I'm not going to ignore my own logic and instinct." The second you discredit a map because of awkward feelings youre no longer looking at the map for what it truly is. And that contradiction is what extends and dictates to your entire opinion of level design and started this conversation. You are not objective.
Well, I had responses to everything you said, but my phone froze the page. So I'll make this short. I believe level design is subjective. That hasn't changed. You are not an authority to determine what is and isn't original. I subscribe to what Schnitzel has said: It's all been done before. Everything we know about level design is because we've learned it from others, and through our own experience. You're starting to use ridiculous hyperboles and mis-quotes, and it's lowering my interest in responding. I learned a lot creating maps in Murder Miners. A lot about what the creator likes vs what the player likes. The fourth map that I released, Worthy, is by far my most played map in my library. I've made maps since then that took more time and thought, and were more varied and interesting. But, they preferred Worthy. Why? Because, as Career says, "forgers don't know ****". Schnitzel once said it was "boxes in a box". And it is. But it was better suited for high-level play then any of my more creative maps. EDIT: Those non-subjective approaches were subjective. I'm going to use your own words against you and ask if I have to make a subjective disclaimer every time I explain my opinion. I become a little less careful with my wording, like you usually are, and that's the way that you respond to it. It upsets you that those fragments had a matter-of-fact tone.
Okay, what? Don't try to play the moral high ground here. This entire discussion started with you randomly replying to Multi with an insult, and to me with yet another insult. You're not getting away with that ****. As far as your contradictions... there it is again. You literally just got finished saying that this was ALL subjective, but here you are saying that the encounter wasn't common practice because it was awkward. You are saying that everyone or most people think that it is awkward, which is why the encounter isn't common practice. So, on one hand you say it is all completely subjective. On the other hand, you say that the tele cave's geometry is objectively awkward, which is why it's not in other maps. This is the definition of a contradiction.
"It's all been done before" is an absolute bullshit cop out excuse to not actually push yourself. If it's all been done before, then where the **** was the z ramp or tele cave on Oblivion before he made it? Where was the spiral tower in storm peaks? There are INFINITE possibilities in a 3d space. What you're suggesting isn't even possible much less plausible.
Aka "you're not the boss and this is all your opinion and everything is creative and everything is good, there's no point in trying to be creative because it's all been done blah blah." This conversation is over you've talked yourself into a corner.
Today I had to climb into a boat in the middle of a lake. Anyone that tries to say that's not awkward better be ready to fight me.
This is my exact point. Arguing about originality has to be the dumbest **** possible. None of us have seen everything, so none of us know what has and hasn't been done. Who made a teleporter that you drop into? Tyrant. And I'm sure plenty of people did before him as well. Who made a ramp that zig zags as you go up it? Are you kidding me? If you give me an original concept that plays worse 'from my perspective' (since I need to say it now) than a proven concept, then the proven concept is the better map. Original to the forge community doesn't mean original in level design.
Youre basically implying that maps like legion and storm peaks are as generic as Angst and Midship by this post and it's incredibly stupid. Every post you make is riddled with contradictions at this point.
"None of us have seen everything, so none of us know what has and hasn't been done." THEN WHY THE **** DID YOU JUST MAKE THE CLAIM THAT IT'S ALL BEEN DONE?!?!?! Can you really not see the MASSIVE contradiction from one post to the next? Are you just a robot that resets every five minutes or what because I can't wrap my head around how blatant this is ahahahaha Oh and I see you conveniently ignored my other post calling out your mismatching claims... reminds me of someone. I don't know what I was expecting ahahaha you're the guy who said that statistics don't matter because you had nothing left to argue on
I absolutely am saying that. The strive to do what's never been done when you don't know what's been done is silly. Especially when it comes to the detriment of gameplay. Another difference between us, Multi: I'm fine with you, and anybody else, making what they want. You, on the other hand, apply what your goals are to everyone else. It's that type of thing that creates hostility in the community. It isn't a machine that has one set goal. We all have different preferences in gameplay and design, and we all forge for different reasons.
Me, accepting all types of level design and not feeling awkward, is me being open minded. You literally discredited maps from the doubles contest because they made you feel weird. That is you falling prey to your sensitive emotions in an objective judgement of a map. So which one of us is being divisive? I literally make videos telling people to try new ****. Everything you've said thus far is the OPPOSITE of being okay with whatever people make. Reread your post, you're literally telling people not to try new things. Possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum. Remove that midship joke from your signature.
THIS JUST IN FROM THE XZAMPLES NEWS NETWORK! Article 1 "Don't bother forging because it's all been done!" Article 2 "We don't know what has or hasn't been done so don't try new things!" Article 3 "Statistics don't matter as much as individual cases even though statistics are just a compilation of individual cases" I can't ahahahahaa
You, saying that a map's identity is based on its broad concept is closed-minded. I had more reasons, and I was one of four people. Again, I love how you repeatedly target me for a four-man decision. I am cool with whatever people make, but I will have an opinion on it. Obviously. Again, putting words in my mouth. Try what you assume are original concepts in level design, but don't be surprised if they aren't. @MultiLockOn I never said anything about a teleporter being green, that's a misquote. Oh, sorry. That's Xandrith. Hard to tell.
Oh. Okay. It is close minded to think the layout of a map defines its identity. I understand now. Thank you Father. --- Double Post Merged, Jul 3, 2017 --- Hey guys, just got word from corporate. A map isn't defined by it's layout. Carry on.