FUKKING HELL YOU FAGGUETTES I'M NOT GONNA SIT HERE FOR HOURS JUST TO READ Y'ALL'S BULLSHIT, REDUNDANT ARGUMENTS THAT'VE BEEN GOING ON FOR MONTHS IF NOT YEARS. FUUUUUUUUUUKKK 15 PAGES I'VE COME BACK TO p.s. nice peepee @LargerFiend
http://s622.photobucket.com/user/thexzample/media/IMG_1906_zpsaerjbuyy.png.html] Photobucket is pissing me off
Alright, I gave it go and did everything you specified. Not sure if it's exactly what you expected, but do you reckon it looks better? I used olive for an overhead light colour on my plants and to also add as a backlight for some rocks.
And now, a haiku. By Multi L. On - It has all been done. Don't try to be creative. Everything's the same.
if you took literaly all the weapons off maybe i love looking back on maps and realizing how much **** we used to use.
Just gonna throw this out there because I'm bored and don't have any novels to keep me entertained... Making a creative map that plays like **** is easier than making a good playing map that follows a well known design template, for the average forger. I've seen far more shitty original designs than I have good 2b2t designs. Assuming we're judging a map on its merits, whether a map plays well is of far more importance than how original it is. Of course, an original concept or original design style that plays well is superior to an unoriginal design that plays well. I wonder if sometimes the disagreement over these points isn't a difference of what the end goal is. For the forger who is purely intent on stretching their comfort zone, creativity, even if something plays like ****, is almost always going to be more valuable than building a good playing map that utilizes a proven design style. For the forger who's trying to make a map that plays well competitively, and is loved by competitive forgers, creativity is still valuable, but far less so. Our goals generally determine our priorities, and our interpretation of 'success'. This is what can cause two people to have entirely different interpretations of a map, even IF they're looking for the same essential qualities. We don't ever really see things with the naked eye, so to speak; we're always viewing them through the lens that is our personal perspectives, preferences, and priorities. This lens we view through is what results in us seeing different things.
Since ForgeHub loves its politics, let's break this down into Progressive maps vs Conservative maps. Progressive maps would be the creative, innovative and experimental maps, whereas Conservative maps would be the proven layouts or otherwise safe and risk-free designs. I think most of us would agree that the hierarchy of quality is as follows: Progressive and well done > Conservative and well done > Progressive and not well done > Conservative and not well done Innovation and forward thinking in the context of level design are often celebrated, as it inspires people to think differently and challenge themselves. "I didn't know we could do that" is one of the best feelings about using Forge as a level editor and it's that drive to try new things that keeps the community alive. However, many people also prefer maps that are easier to learn or otherwise familiar to them, often as a result of being similar to successful designs before them. And it goes without saying that nobody wants to play something that sucks. Nevertheless, a conservative map isn't inherently "suited for competitive gameplay" anymore than a progressive map is inherently "suited for casual gameplay". Indeed a safe design is more likely to play well than something experimental on the merit of being risk free; however, provided the designer is skilled, a progressive map can achieve similar results. Of course that can be left up to the interpretation of the individual. While those "essential qualities" are generally consistent from person to person, someone is always going to see aspects of a map differently than another. This is why I prefer to look at a map as a whole rather than the parts, because when viewing the individual elements, we are more susceptible to our biases and likely to distort them with our preferences. This phenomenon can be observed with my map Spellbound. Aside from a few geometrical issues that I retroactively addressed, the map played well. The entire map was used, the pick ups weren't obnoxious, the spawns were fine, and the strategies varied between teams. By all measures, there was nothing wrong with the design; however, I've heard people criticize it for repetitive encounters and "generic" geometry. Obviously those are their opinions and their interpretations as perceived flaws, and I as the creator have a right to either disagree with the interpretation, or elect to ignore it if that is what I wanted out of the design. At that point, what matters is who my target audience is. With that map, I wasn't targeting the upper echelon of Forge potential, nor was I intending to push any gameplay boundaries; therefore, the map more or less achieved what I set out to do with it. This is an example of a conservative design that plays well. (Of course, it was deleted shortly after for unrelated reasons, but I digress.) If certain individuals value innovation above all else and interpret the hierarchy above as a way to score maps (such that conservative maps can never reach a 5 star rating), that is their prerogative. The same goes for those who value other elements of design such as high level gameplay. And it bears repeating that these things aren't mutually exclusive, but are tied to their overall execution instead. I personally value execution and the holistic premise above all, whether it is progressive or conservative. I feel that this broader outlook on level design affords me the ability to appreciate a wide variety of maps. I've mentioned it once before: I don't want to see maps that are simply good or maps that are simply new. I want to see maps that are flawless.
I'm gonna take a massive dump on the entire community. Teaser Image for my 100% progressive orginal and flaw free BTB map "Liberated"