I just want to release something that I'm proud to say meets all of my goals: At least 3 unique areas for orientation A rich meta game that differs between teams Believable, authentic environment Unique shapes and paths that give the map character Photorealistic lighting and immersive atmosphere Bulletproof design that doesn't fall apart under pressure I'm on track to accomplish almost all of that and I hope it'll be something that finally gives me credibility.
Well said. I think nearly everyone here recognizes this, and it's all I was trying to say really. I was just imagining less experienced designers reading the discussion and misunderstanding what was being said, so I felt it was important to clarify.
I can start going back to my old style of forging and make a bunch of ink blot nightmares for you guys to sift through. They won't be great on their own, but they have a bunch of unique areas for inspiration
Even if you never release another map, I think most people that would care already recognize your ability. I think you're selling yourself short, or at least underestimating how highly people in this community think of you.
Imo I'm envious of the way Goat strives for nothing less than perfection. You can see how it pains him to not release content, but he bears it better than I could atm. So every map I make now I have 2 "or" conditions to be met before release: A. Either my map is at the peak of my own interest, and I don't have enough passion or dedication to make it 'A3G' worthy or B. It's A3G worthy. Also @A 3 Legged Goat there's you're three unique areas. You need to fit an A, a 3, and a G in your next map as key pieces of the layout so the sky shot looks dope af
I'll never truly see myself as "good" until i do something i'm satisfied with. I think that's the greatest feeling I could have as a creative person next to seeing people enjoy my creation. More importantly, I would rather let the maps do the talking. Being vain is exhausting. I can't stand Halo 5 and designing with limitations is constantly frustrating. But it is painful to have the ability to Forge, the desire to Forge, and to not make use of that. It's why @SaltyKoala deletes all his maps to get it off his conscience, and why @SecretSchnitzel once said that Forge takes up too much of your mental energy. I'm really not interested in making something and showing off about it. I honestly just want to do stuff that hasn't been done yet, because I can, and I want to see it. It'd be nice to be inspiring for once.
Yeah I get through the muck by waiting for those few moments of laughter that still echo occasionally while playing sweet forge maps or making a cool design. And at the very least, it can be a ****-covered stepping stone for h6 (or the next one and the next one...) or whatever building premise I find next. In this case I agree too; it does suck mental energy from you, but that pull is exponentially increased the more you care about the game. So I guess I've had more life beaten out of me and makes me numb enough to the bullshit of halo 5 that I can make map after map lol. However, I'm also at a similar stage (if not skill, but eagerness towards progress) of forging that I'm really starting to come into my own, and I find more and more motherforging glitches and limitations; it's easy to be overwhelmed by that abysmal miasma.
Like I've said before, I am very easily impressed unless I'm trying to impress myself. I can appreciate different ideas, solid geometry, and cool themes. If I had more patience for Halo 5, I'd love to run my own lobbies just to see the kind of maps people were making. But playing and designing for this game is tremendously taxing.
I can actually say I am perfectly content with the content I have produced from trinity to now, I consider those my map portfolio.
I think 343 should scrap the whole 'block' paradigm and just go for an extrude/cutaway tool Just import the entire solidworks program into halo 6 and I'll be happy
I can't believe I read through that whole arguement on Hubris only to find goat basically changed his opinion of the map at the end. Also, no matter how much experience you have I don't see how you guys can truly judge a map until you've played it. You can't tell everything from the initial design.
Then why do people test and then edit maps or spend hours building them only to decide they don't play well. If you could just tell everything from the design what's the point of testing. I'm no level designer but that doesn't really add up for me... I guess what I'm saying is you can tell a lot from the design but not everything
The difference between us is that you value originality on a small scale (forge). I value originality on a large scale (level design). Big fish, small pond. They are already proven ideas. I haven't seen a gameplay concept that wasn't a proven idea be used in a forge map. Everything I've seen people were doing in the 90s. Oblivion is a U shape. Geometry circles the bridge, but ends at the hill. From a conceptual point of view, this is a very proven and common shape. It's just the approach that makes it feel different. That goes without saying at this point.
The argument was on similarities and repetitiveness and Hubris was simply used incorrectly as an example of the former. Regardless of whether it is your design or someone elses, looking at maps the right way is more beneficial than testing. Testing exposes you to way too many variables such as player skill, player intelligence, and familiarity, and then there's the whole "feedback" on top of that. That is frankly too many things to juggle, and not very reliable unless you have both a dedicated group and a massive sample size. But even then, I've tested maps hundreds of times with dozens of players and watched hours of gameplay, only to learn nothing I didn't already know from looking at the map closely beforehand. The keyword here is "closely" because it's easy to overlook something, like spawns. If you're testing your own maps to figure out how they play, you're going to end up iterating over and over until you either overdesign or water it down due to your inability to understand the map. Testing is best used for balancing micro geometry, tweaking spawns, adjusting weapon sets, and deciding whether you like how players play the map or not. You can also test iterations simultaneously to figure out which one more closely aligns with your goals. But testing to "get an idea" of how a map plays isn't necessary, especially if it's a proven design. Obviously something more experimental may need to be tested to be understood, but most of the heavy lifting is still done theoretically. Most of my playtests are 1v1s in Forge that last all of 7 minutes and it tells me basically everything I need to know about the map before I would test it. The only changes I've made to a map after testing are descaling, adding an area that I purposely excluded the first time, adjusting angles, or deciding that i didn't like the way it played and going back to the drawing board. I've never tested a map to figure out how it plays on a macro level, or to understand what i've made. If you don't know why you are putting objects down or how they are going to interact, then how are you going to know how to troubleshoot and fix problems? This foresight is obviously a skill that takes time to develop, but it makes sense that the more you understand about design and the more closely you look at a map, the less you have to spend looking for lobbies and watching theater footage. And this speaks for itself. The quality ratio of maps that are constantly tested and iterated on are dwarfed by those that are only formally tested after they're in a more complete state. Good chef's don't constantly taste their dishes to figure out whether they're using the right spices or not. You should know that before you even turn the fire on.
In your words, an open aired map with 3 speedboosts "might provide an experience unlike anyone has created." "Might" is your scapegoat for when someone digs up a map from an obscure shooter to support your "everything has been done since the 90s" claim, but it was convenient for you to side with the Forge context in that moment and say "nobody has done this in Forge." Which one is it? Do you really believe that it's impossible to be original due to not knowing what has been made, or be "unlike anyrhing anyone has created" because we are all using proven concepts, or are you intentionally being pretentious and talking out of your ass? Do you honestly believe there is no original music because 4 chords, structured lyrics and 4/4 time signature are all proven concepts, and some random in his basement could have potentially made the same song? Does someone have to invent new soundwaves and instruments for you to find value in their music?
The difference between us is that you value originality on a small scale (forge). I value originality on a large scale (level design). Big fish, small pond. No. I value originality on every measurable scale. I suppose that it's quite inconvenient for you that I'm somewhat of an expert on my own opinions, isn't it? They are already proven ideas. I haven't seen a gameplay concept that wasn't a proven idea be used in a forge map. Everything I've seen people were doing in the 90s. You are again making the preposterous claim that everything has been done before. This is quite honestly one of the most illogical and just flat out ignorant perspectives I've ever witnessed. Especially because it is a complete contradiction of another claim you have recently made, and I quote, "Nobody can say what has or has not been done". It's comical at this point. Oblivion is a U shape. Geometry circles the bridge, but ends at the hill. From a conceptual point of view, this is a very proven and common shape. It's just the approach that makes it feel different. Okay, this paragraph starts as a typical "it's all been done" post. You're saying a map shaped like oblivion has been done before because there is geometry wrapping around other geometry. You are purposefully broadening our definition of shape so that you can look "right" on a technicality, even though Multi already provided a novel explaining to you what we mean when we say it. That, folks, is what we call intellectual dishonesty. However... hilariously... you so graciously point out that "it's just the approach that makes it feel different". Someone get the recorder! Xzamples is agreeing that Oblivion feels different! You've just gone from saying that "It's all been done" to "Oblivion is different". Think about it. EDIT: Oh yeah! You also make the claim on your own map that it's "and experience like no other" Hahahaha
At this point, I don't even think we are debating philosophy anymore. It's impossible to have a discussion when one party is being completely paradoxical. I don't see how you can believe that everything has been done since the 90s, say with the same breath that we don't know what has or hasn't been done before, and therefore we can't be original, and then claim that you've created something that hasn't been done before. Somebody needs to get those goal posts off of normal physics because I'm tired of watching them move.