@a Chunk Between that analogy and your last post - both of which reference experience and intelligence - it feels like you're insinuating that I don't understand what I am discussing. I honestly do not think the micro differences on the Hubris design are relevant - like at all - when his holistic macro layout is incredibly similar to the maps he's already shown to the extent that the encounters and player flow are going to be similar as well. So what if a room has two ramps in it instead of one, or 24 feet long walls instead of 12? Players are spawning in the same areas, moving the same ways, and having pretty much the same repetitive encounters because the overall design is the same. The only thing that appears to offset that are the teleporters, which seem to be bandaids in this context. Regret plays different than Midship because it takes the thing that made Midship - being able to shoot across the map - and puts a giant ass structure in the dead center. This allows you to push into the center without being seen, which is the antithesis of Midship, and therefore a MACRO change. That would be like Xzamplez taking all of the walls off of Hubris and making it a catwalk map, and at that point I would have nothing to say because it would play completely different. But don't tell me you changed the weapon set, moved a few ramps, upscaled a few rooms and threw a teleporter on an indoor map with 4 rooms, 3 equidistant levels, and a giant wall dividing them, and then say I don't understand what makes that map unique. So long as the macro design is similar, the map is going to play similar.
I actually chuckled reading each of these descriptions, because none of them are accurate with Hubris. I loled at the "teleporter bandaid" as well, considering the map was designed around that concept. You are straight up talking out of your ass at this point, Goat.
I stand by everything I've said and it is consistent with my perspective on level design for a while now. But if you can produce evidence that the map is significantly different, I will admit to misreading your blueprint.
Your perspective is fine. Expecting me to adhere to it isn't, though. It's called philosophy for a reason. We all forge for our own reasons. Nobody should have to justify why and what they create to anyone else. If my goal with a map ever becomes 'impress Goat', that's when your words will become useful to me. The evidence is in the blueprint. I have no idea when I'm going to forge it. Your descriptions with the differences between Midship and Regret are true. Worthy and These Walls have just as significant differences, you just choose to ignore them, and focus on the similarities. "Paths along the exterior wall". Seriously??? Midship and Regret also have paths all along the exterior wall. Do they play the same as Worthy too? "Ramps going up one level". "Centralized pits". I've never heard such ridiculous nit-picks and over simplifications in my entire time designing maps. So this Plays the same as these
I wasn't insinuating that. I'm certain that you understand that micro level changes affect how a map plays. You're talking about specific maps, while I'm talking in general terms. I'm trying to discuss this from a macro view (level design) while everyone else is discussing it from a micro view (particular maps). I don't have any problem with the focus of the discussion that's happening on particular maps. I just want to be sure that everyone reading the discussion understands that you're discussing a particular map, and that what you're saying about the micro differences not making any difference is your opinion about the maps you're discussing relative to each other, rather than making it as a blanket statement. Macro and micro are both important, and both impact how a map plays. Two maps that are designed similarly on the macro level will play similarly in the larger sense (map flow). They will also play differently on the micro level, to the degree that the micro level design varies from map to map. Whether or not the micro level differences are sufficient enough between two particular maps to make them play 'differently' in any persons eyes is for them to decide. However, if a person states flatly that the micro differences on maps are irrelevant, THEN I would say that this is a pretty short-sighted point of view. To someone who completely disregards the impact of macro differences, I would say the same. I think I just repeated the same thing about 4 times, lol. What the hell...let's do it one more time. Let's talk about spaghetti though (because I'm craving some). What you're saying is that these specific dishes by this specific chef are both spaghetti, and that the flavor is close enough to the same that the differences in seasoning are irrelevant. What I'm saying is that that may be true, but that it's very possible to have two spaghetti dishes that taste drastically different. I feel like that obvious truth is being lost (not being communicated) in this discussion, and wanted to make sure everyone reading the discussion understands the difference.
I'm sad I deleted my cabin. Tried to start a reforge and realized I don't give a damn, nor does anyone else, about Halo 5. I ****ing miss being passionate about level design for a game I actually loved. RIP BOX'S ROOM
@xzamplez Worthy 4 spawn areas (+ the space underneath if it's activated) 3 levels (basically 2) 2 lanes Clockwise flow These Walls 4 spawn areas (+ the space underneath if it's activated) 3 levels 2 lanes Clockwise flow The only difference between the way these maps is going to play is These Walls will be slower paced, as a result of the player in an advantageous position having more cover and the paths to approach them being exposed. Upon looking at Hubris closer however, it appears that I misread some of the overlap, which reveals a figure 8 flow for one side of the map. I also see 3 distinct areas and an additional level that I completely missed before. The flow difference alone separates its macro design from the other two, and the teleporters impact the flow even further. Therefore, your micro geometry would be the determining the nature of the encounters themselves relative to the other maps at that point. Ironically, @MartianMallCop's initial post about its theme looks weird in that context because the design would very easily translate to a believable theme compared to the other two. As for the other point, it was not my intention to tell you to "adhere to my preferences." Nobody here can do that except me. I didn't imply that any of your maps were "boring" or "uninteresting" either because those are subjective opinions. My only criticism stems from the similarity between your designs in the face of your preferences, which would ordinarily be more flexible than those of us who prefer to design with themes. Hubris didn't fit that mold now that I am looking at the design more closely, but I don't believe what I brought up was irrelevant. I really should get back to my vacation though instead of reading this thread. Clearly I can't run around an amusement park and look at top downs simultaneously.
Real conversation 10 minutes ago with my co worker level designer Were looking at my map "This angle is really weird" Me: *eye twitch* I hate that word. Why is it weird. "I dunno it just feels weird I'm not looking straight in front of me" Me: okay. Can you show me the math real quick for when an angle becomes weird I wanna know what degree to avoid. "Just make it face straight ahead it just makes me feel weird" Me: okay. The flat ground and 90 degree angles on your map make me uncomfortable. "I'm just telling you its word" Me: cool. And you can't even tell me why. I disagree "You always say you disagree with everyone" Me: Yeah I say that when I disagree.
Proper etiquette infers the use of 'awkward' as opposed to 'weird' --- Double Post Merged, Jul 14, 2017 --- New map inspiration:
Trying to get good weapon ports for a custom Zombies map is like pulling teeth for a tedious amount of time.
As I was quoted, I feel the need to respond: My post was mostly made in jest. I'm not here to claim anyone's inclusion in my opinion. I agree that there are many valid perspectives that are often at odds with one another. I am also over the "my way or the highway" attitude posters tend to take when debating those perspectives. Infinity lays in the expanses as well as the minutiae. (If I can't get you to say you agree with me, I guess I'll agree with you.) To all entwined in this blood feud, I just want to say I'm not really invested in burning bridges, but I'm fine with breaking down walls, so sorry if the foot I'm on with you isn't the right one. Also, if anyone would like to fight it out to the bitter end I'm also down for that, just call me out or something. But you have to start your post with "have at thee, SloppyBottom!" so I know we are cool first.
@a Chunk I can't speak for anyone else, but I definitely don't value macro geometry over micro geometry. I see them as equally important aspects of any given map, but they can be judged separately. The micro encounters in xzamples maps are by far and large already proven and recognizable ideas. He tends to create a new arrangement of those encounters with every new map. In my eyes, one can only create a truly unique play-space if you solidify new Ideas on both fronts. A map can have the same old door to door action and have somewhat interesting overall flow, but we have already experienced those encounters countless times before. A map can also have really intricate and original micro geometry, yet lack overall shape. Holding back on either front is a waste of potential. I personally think the best example of a map that does both well is Oblivion. You would be hard-pressed to find a map shaped anything like it, but each individual area is also unique on its own. There are a few areas on Oblivion that were (purposefully) toned down to provide a nice contrast for the player, but for the most part, the encounters are of which I had never experienced before that map. Inb4 "uR a MuLti FaNbOy"