Also, I think that we have a fundamental difference in ideology about design that's pretty interesting. It seems to me that you think a designer is successful when he follows "good design principles." I think that a designer is successful when he achieves his goal(s), which can often times be done without following whatever has been defined as "good design principles." I do not think that the goal itself is to follow "good design principles." --- I would call superfiesta fantastic design, because it seems to me that the point was to create something for super casual, super drunk, or otherwise not-super-caring players, and I think that this is very much accomplished. That being said, any idiot could have designed superfiesta. Who cares? I think supefiesta probably isn't super enjoyable for extended periods of time, but that was not the intent (it seems to me). It would be a better product if it were enjoyable for extended periods of time, but I cannot call the design bad. Every product ever could be improved, but that does not mean that their designs are bad. If you want something with more depth, then you might be sacrificing the casual nature of superfiesta, which was the entire point to begin with.
This is a stupid argument written very eloquently and I'll give you props for that. But it's still stupid so I'm not going to merit it with a response beyond: No, meeting your "design goals" does not make something well designed.
Well you're correct from a certain point of view, but you're missing a part of the picture. Let's say I want to make a car. When I tell someone "i am making a car", they expect certain things from that car - let's call it "integrity". They expect it to run well, have good safety features, be comfortable, and last long. But what if I'm making a car that has no windows, an old engine, and a body made out of 2x4s I bought from Lowe's? My design goals could absolutely be to create a car that looks like it was built in a cave by people who just discovered electricity, and I could meet every single one of those goals when I put it to the test. But is it good? Who defines what is "good"? Well, through trial and error, a list of essential elments for an automobile has been created, which includes the aforementioned things like safety. You wont find a car made of wood on the interstate because it's just not well designed. Now, there are things people might prefer in an automobile than another. Someone might want a midsized sedan, while another might want an SUV. A truck guy is obviously not going to buy a sports car if we wants to haul his boat. And Lil' Spranklz isn't rolling around the hood looking for chicks in a Prius - he wants a Lexus with spinning rims and a sound system installed in his trunk. We all have different tastes based on our needs and what we have been conditioned to, but we all expect a certain level of quality and integrity from something. The problem is when it comes to entertainment, most people are not aware that there is something better out there, or they simply do not care because they are already satisfied with their current level of stimulus. But the fact that you enjoy Super fiesta and it is designed to be exactly what it is for its intended audience doesn't mean it is high quality. It just means that sometimes, we are easy to please, or in the mood for something shallow that appeals to our emotions and ridiculous urges, and not to our common sense or our brains. And again, that comes down to conditioning. Relating to Halo, the fanbase has come to accept poor design over the years because they've been conditioned to it. The overwhelming majority of the fanbase would not know a good map from a bad map and the proof is in the fact that people still remake bad maps, and in many cases make them worse. Bungie remade The Burning Shrine from Destiny in the sequel and they made two changes: they got rid of the beach area that people used to sit behind, and they removed the sun. They made these changes because people used to sit in the back of the map with snipers and use the sun to their advantage. Bungie obviously intended for people to do that, because that's why those things were there in the first place. Read that again: their intended goals for the first version of the map were met. And yet it turned out that they didn't like it in in the end - why? Because it's bad design. Because those things ruined the overall integrity of the map. There are obviously people who enjoyed that element of the map. But just because you like shooting 2 bullets into the ground and using a Final Round sniper, doesn't mean it is good for the integrity of the game. When it comes to video games, the majority of us are slave to our emotions and moods. I stopped playing Overwatch when they rebalanced my favorite Hero because - even though the changes were necessary - I no longer found her fun to play. I have that right as a player to decide that my needs are no longer being met, but there's a certain point where the integrity of the design needs to be preserved and it is my choice to adapt or move on. And again, the problem is that, when it comes to games like Halo, people are willing to adapt to poor changes because that's all they're used to. Halo 6 is going to roll around and there are a bunch of Halo 5 fanboys who are going to hate it, and then there will be Halo 6 kids who tell them to "This isn't Halo 3, adapt or move on." People know what they want, but they don't know what they need and they don't recognize it when it's right in front of them until it is gone.
I mostly agree, but I think we are divided by terminology and one idea. I see design and product as two different things, and I do so because not everyone wants the same product. Take your example of a windowless, engineless car. This product is not meant for everyone. In fact, this product is meant for so few people that it could be said that this product is terrible. But really, this product was designed specifically for those few weirdos, and it makes them very happy. I call this good design. Is this weirdo car a good product? It depends on how you define "good." If it's measured by its average rating by the average person, then it would surely be a terrible product. If it's measured by number of consumers, as compared to other cars, it will surely be a terrible product. How about if it's measured by maximum happiness in any one consumer? I don't know. However, the goal was not to make a car for everyone, it was to make a car specifically for a very select few. That goal was accomplished. Sometimes people have weird preferences, and I think that design that caters to those weird preferences can still be considered good design. --- I also don't believe in one essential list of traits that a product must posess in order for its design to be considered "good." Why do those traits make it good? I think it's usually because they help the designer satisfy his or her goal, and the goal is usually to make a "good" product, and I think that "good" is often measured by average rating. But if the goal is different, then why are those traits important? If you only consider good design to be something that creates a good product, and you measure goodness by something like average rating, then why is conforming to a list of "essential traits" important? A product could conceivably have a high average consumer rating without following any of the items in the list of "essential traits."
This game looks awful and will flop harder than lawbreakers Edit: IRONICALLY on the topic of the past few days, I would argue that this is OBJECTIVELY poorly designed and is exciting people due to its immediate satisfaction. Guarantee the pleasure of portal hopping will die after 2 days of being portal ****ed from unguardable and unpredictable encounters. But hey, they're mAkInG a GAmE tHaT tHeY lIKe tO pLaY
Yeah, that'd be fun for like a game or two and then you'd realize the skill gap will be minuscule because of how random everything will be.
Euiughhh roughly speaking yes..... but there’s a fundamental error - “who” defines? No! “W H A T” defines what a good map is. I’ll type this up in the morning
I can imagine if people actually got into the game the skill gap could be huge. The portals aren't random, they add an extra layer to the gameplay. High tier games would likely be filled with players zooming around the map with the use of the portals constantly predicting what the other player may do and trying to get behind each other for a kill. I've said this before for which I got lots of hate. I think the gameplay here could be really interesting fun and would require a lot of skill a high level. Really depends on the maps. Only worry would be it's probably very difficult at first to traverse the maps via portals and takes some learning but I feel the novelty of the idea would keep players going till they begin to get good. For once, in the video you showed, IGN make some good points.
hellll naaawww lmao what a total cluster**** The part that really got me... "while you can see(and shoot) through your own portals, enemy portals remain opaque."
Dude, LOW tier gameplay is filled with bombastic tele hopping already, high tier gameplay would be high tier retarded. You're not allowed to complain about map movement from sprint thrust clamber charge hover slide pound if you can turn around and me that game looks competitive lmao
I don't think good design is dictated by an average rating by an average person. I think good design simply exists and it's our goal to discover it and interpret it. Ideas float about in the quantum realm of collective consciousness (in other words, everything that is possible). It's why multiple people can have the same idea; none of it belongs to us. However, when we pull that idea out of the quantum realm and assign characteristics to it, now we are trying to look for its potential and uncover its voice. Let's say I want to make a "good 2v2 capture the flag map". I've pulled this idea from the quantum realm, and now the potential is only as limited as the idea itself. There are no rules, so there's nothing to say I'm supposed to make it purple, really small, and name it Midship. I can do whatever I want, except pull another idea that directly contradicts the initial idea. Like, I can't decide that I'm going to cook something and make it poisonous, because that goes against food's purpose as nourishment for consumption. It is contradictory to set out to make something and then design it in such a way that betrays its intended purpose. Therefore, even if the audience for that wooden car has "weird preferences" and they find perfect enjoyment out of it, the fact that it is a car designed to be driven on the road makes it a poor design - regardless of whether its design goals were actually accomplished. There are certain things a car needs to be well designed - not according to the average person, but according to the purpose of the idea. But say your intention was to make a shitty wooden car that only one person would like. Technically you could say that because you reached the potential of the idea, your design is "good". You could set out to make food that is poisonous and say it is "good" because it is "as good as poisonous food gets". But nevertheless, at a core level, this appeals to the lowest of urges and lowest of desires, and that is interestingly enough against the way our minds work. Because "goodness" isn't something that we can devalue with our preferences. "Goodness" is a constant. We are inherently drawn to high quality, high integrity things, and embracing things that are below that threshold is a conscious deviation away from our programming. As far as Level Design goes, this is where many people find weight in the subjectivity argument. They create "maps they like to play" and then they say "it's a good design because it does everything I want it to." But in most of these cases, this defense is used to excuse poor decisions that, in fact, contradict the original idea, especially if that map was intended to be something high quality. For example, someone who sets out to make a map for 1v1 gameplay could make decisions that go against the integrity of that player count, like putting overpowered weapons, abuseable corners, or bad spawns on the map. It could be designed exactly as they intended, but it would be a bad design - not because the average person thinks it is bad, but because it simply contradicts itself. Halo 5 is that way. The core of the game is designed to be "competitive, fast, and accessible" yet it contradicts itself in virtually every element of its design. It's not because "the vocal minority" doesn't like XYZ; it's just poorly designed. Therefore, when we design maps for this game, we are already building for something that is flawed. Of course, seeing things that way means believing things can be right and wrong. The root of this discussion seems to stem from the fact that design is as much an art as it is a science. Science is based upon the current level of understanding. We believed the Earth was flat, not because we were wrong, but because we didn't know it was round yet. The Earth never changed shape, mind you - we simply discovered the truth. Over time, many things we've believed to be true have changed as we've become better at interpreting them, and design is no different. When Halo 5 launched, many of us put a variety of weapons on our maps. However, as the game went on, more people began to use less and less of the sandbox. Why? The weapons stayed the same for the most part, and it's not like our tastes suddenly changed. Most of us play Halo to pick up weapons, and the game is designed for that. However, we became better at interpreting Halo 5's actual design and decided that these things hurt its integrity. I honestly think that 98% of the weapon sandbox is unusable in 2v2 in the majority of circumstances. There are ways to design a map to "balance" or otherwise allow some weapons on them, but in most situations, they are going to be unfair kills that cheapen the quality of the gameplay. The reason they cheapen the quality - or hurt its integrity - is because Halo is not designed to be a game where you are killed by nonsense that you have no control over. It is designed to be a game where your skill determines your success. Even despite the fact that the weapons themselves are meant to be nothing more than easy kills, I would consider them poorly designed because they contradict the game they are built for. If you seek to maintain the integrity of a creation, there are certain things that would go against that even if you met all of your goals in designing it that way. That's just logic, which is at its core the science of understanding things as they are. And again, what if there was a shooter that was designed for cheap kills? What if there was a map that was designed to be as clusterfucky as possible? Well I would say that goes against our nature in that we are driven to things that are fair. We want to feel like we are in control, and when we are killed by randomness, something inside of us stirs that says "Hey, that wasn't quite right." Now, many people ignore this feeling or even enjoy it, but that isn't indicative of quality - even if it is designed to be that way. That simply means that some people enjoy adrenaline rush they get from stupidity like Blink Shotgun in Destiny. We are emotional creatures, and dopamine and serotonin are a helluva drug. The other side of the design coin is art, and that is based squarely in expression, which is completely unique to each individual. Some people prefer things that are poorly designed for the reasons I outlined in the other post; we simply have preferences based on our moods and emotions, the way we grew up, social conditioning, or current level of understanding. It's why even if two people have a tremendous understanding of music theory and play 20 instruments each, they could have vastly different opinions about a song based on what they look for and how their mind's lens is tuned. If you take the average rating of Halo's map pool, most people would say Lockout is one of the best Team Slayer maps. But if we look at it from a design perspective, we will find flaws with it. It's not because some of us prefer to play maps that don't have walkways, but because it sets out to accomplish something and fails to reach its potential due to things that compromise the integrity of its gameplay. Chris Carney designed Lockout for 1v1, so playing 4v4 Team Slayer on it inherently goes against its design. But let's say he tells you he wanted it to play slow as balls in Team Slayer; it would be considered a flawed design because Halo itself isn't designed to play that way. Halo is, according to the principles that govern the core of the game, designed to promote movement and fairness. Even if Lockout was designed to play not like Halo, it would still be considered a bad design because it exists within Halo to be played for Halo. The only place Lockout could be considered "a good design" is if it exists in a game that is designed for gameplay to come to a screeching halt. And so long as that design doesn't go against our inherent nature - in this case, allowing the person a fair chance to succeed, it would not devalue its goodness. Art will always be subjective, and that is okay, because it is designed to be. It is the part of design that makes something relatable to a certain audience. However, when your audience is Halo, there are things they come to expect out of a map. You can't make a horror movie that isn't scary, creepy, or disturbing, because then it is not a horror movie. Likewise, you can't make a 1v1 map for Halo that doesn't play 1v1 Halo. Its flaws will become self evident to those who look beyond their moods and preferences and analyze whether it reaches its potential or not. And even if it does, its actual "goodness" is decided by what we as humans almost all are inherently drawn to - wholeness. But again, there are "no rules", which means you can defy conventions, cliches, and what is expected and make something unique. You can make a comedy horror movie that is only ironically scary, and it can be great. But the qualities that make it "good" are almost all universal, because that's just the way we're created. I absolutely agree that we are more alike than different, because at the end of the day, we seek truth, and the truth is constant. It's not our job to define what makes a map good or bad. It's only our job to discover the truth - the way the game plays - and comprise a list of things that preserve the game's integrity versus those that hurt it. This is often confused to be the same thing, and I think a lot of this gets lost in translation because of how nuanced it can be. I usually take a neutral stance on this, because the last thing I want is for people to start believing they can only create certain things a certain way according to someone else's preferences. That's not what art is;a rt is personal expression, and without that, variety would cease to exist. Therefore, there are no rules on creativity. But art is only part of design, and design at its core is a constant that we can only interpret. That's the simplest way I can explain this, and to put a limit on that, or choose to ignore it and do whatever we want, would be both illogical and disingenuous. The last example i'll give of that lies once again with Halo 5. We know how Halo is supposed to play according to the principles that govern the game on a fundamental level. Therefore, when the devs add things like Spartan Abilities and do every thing they can to get them t to work as they intended, it means they not only misunderstand Halo, but they are also actively choosing to compromise the original idea of Halo's integrity. Halo 5 is stil Halo enough for those things to be considered a compromise, and until it becomes something so far removed from Halo that the only thing remaining of its original identity is its branding, that compromise will remain just that. And FURTHERMORE, even if the game were intentionally designed that way, it would never actually be good so long as it went against our inherent desire for fairness. Because at the end of the day, nobody really wants to feel cheated. But that's just my opinion man ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1. The subconscious similarities between people are patterns that can be learned and treated as objective principals 2. Quality persists 3. Creativity has somehow not been brought up yet 4. Goats map is dope 5. My messages on Xbox somehow capture the personality of each person